US collapse- 6 new countries form

[justfollowingtheelections]

Inspired by that crazy Russian guy's prediction of the U.S. falling apart, I decided to make the following map and to ask a few questions for you to answer:


The questions apply only to the 4 new countries, not to Florida and Alaska.  The 2nd congressional district of Nebraska goes with the blue country.

1. What would the 4 new countries be called?
2.  Where would their capitals be?
3. What would be the ideologies of the 2 major political parties formed in each country?
4.  Who would be the presidents of each country?  Only individuals born in these countries should be considered (Obama for example can only be the president in the green country because that's where he was born, while McCain cannot be the president of any country because he wasn't born in any of them).
5. If you live or have lived in one of the states and you feel they should go with a different country than the one they appear to be in on the map, let me know.  But only if you are/have been a resident of that state.

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's kind of silly to assume everything goes by state lines, and even sillier to assume that a congressional district of all things makes the lone exception to that.

It's not like this is going to happen anytime soon... So why not play and have fun?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Blue
1. United States of America
2. Washington
3. Labour vs Conservatives (clones of UK Parties)
4. Eliot Spitzer

We keep the name?  Cool   But Spitzer of all people?  LOL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't the Western states feel a little left out if the nation was named Dixie?  I never would have thought of Dallas as the capital, but it makes perfect sense.  And Barbour is an interesting choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at the name   Denver would have been my choice too, but I don't agree with the two political parties to be honest.  Richardson can't be the president because he was born in California.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally agree with the parties here, but I wonder who the many conservatives would side with.  I was thinking of Portland as the capital considering that Oregon is in the middle between California and Washington.
I like your choices though.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Wouldn't work out so neatly and cleanly.

Thank you captain obvious.  That's why it's a "What if" scenario.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I would think that some of those nations would have more than two major political parties.

Initially, yes they would.  But if we assume their electoral system favors a two party system, I imagine that two major parties would prevail.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I would think that some of those nations would have more than two major political parties.

But if we assume their electoral system favors a two party system

But why should we assume that their electoral system will do that?

for argument's sake

[justfollowingtheelections]

Well if you want to make a prediction that includes multi-party systems, go ahead and do it

[justfollowingtheelections]

Blue:
Northeastern Union
Capital: Washington
Parties: Labor Party (almost socialist on economic issues, socially liberal) vs Liberty Union (Classical liberals)
President: Al Gore

Red:
USA
Capital: Kansas City
Parties: Christian Party (Social conservatives) vs Blue Dogs
President: Ben Nelson

Tan:
Colorado
Capital: Denver
Parties: Progressive party (classical liberals with an interest in environmental issues) vs Libertarian party (the progressive party would almost always be in power).
President: Bill Ritter

Green
Pacifica
Capital: Portland
Parties: Progressive Party (liberals and minorities) vs Republican Party (Conservative, but more open-minded on social issues than the GOP)
President: Barack Obama

[justfollowingtheelections]

Looking at current numbers, this is what these "countries" would look like economically. Of course, taxes from the rich states fund Gov't spending in the poor states, so you could imagine that the North-East and West coast would likely be richer as independent countries. Alaska, on the other hand, is actually rich from federal money so it'd probably end up poorer outside the U.S. than it is now.

North-East
GDP: 6.4 trillion (Wealthiest "country" on earth)
Per capita: $47,000
Population: 134m

Jesus-land
GDP: 3.8 trillion (approx. Japan)
Per capita: $41,000
Population: 92m

West coast
GDP: $2.5 trillion (approx. France)
Per Capita: $48,000
Population: 52m

Florida:
GDP: $735b (Turkey or Netherlands)
Per Capita: $41,000
Population: 18.5m

CO/NM:
GDP: $312b (approx. Denmark)
Per Capita: $44,000
Population: 7m

Alaska:
GDP: $44b (approx. Belarus or Ecuador)
Per Capita: $73,000
Population: 686,000

Alaskans would probably drill for oil, but with the leaders they have, I'm not sure they would have progressed much as a country.  GDP per capita is obviously a better measure of a country's prosperity and no wonder Jesus-land would have the lowest.  They would probably blame the blacks for all their problems and they would end up having a civil war.

In the area once known as the United States of America, the Northeast would have 17 of the 25 best universities (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, U. of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Duke, U. of Chicago, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Brown Univ., Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown and U. of Virginia), the West Coast would have 4 (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley and U. of California at LA) and Jesusland 4 (Washington Univ., Rice, Emory and Vanderbilt).  The other 3 states would have none.