Why or why not is it relevant to still function as a United States of America?

Yes maybe it is time for the united states to break off in to three countries or areas… west, east , and center.

Just because a state is red or blue doesn’t mean everyone in that state agrees. Believe it or not, there are conservatives in California and Liberals in Texas. If you want to split based on ideology, you won’t solve the problem.

I agree with @Jaxk that political parties and spectra are crazy. It puts people into boxes and it gives people such a sense of pride that they’d rather agree with anything that side says and not think about it on their own. It’s organized religion all over again.

California, the most populous state (and overwhelmingly Democrat based on who it has elected the last fifteen years),is actually split geographically; it is overwhelming blue within 35 miles of the Pacific, otherwise it is bright red.

Yet California could survive on its own, but could Nevada without military spending? Could Arizona without Federal water? And much of the South would become a third world nation.

Only a few states stay red or blue, with no changes.
I think instead of scrapping a perfectly good system just because people have made it stinky would be a wrong way to go. People should quit being whiney babies about growing up in the country where they were born, and actively take part in making the country where they were born function more effectively.
I think the west coast should not be privately owned. The immediate coastal areas of Washington, California, Oregon should be government owned, patrolled, and resorts and boating available as a revenue source for keeping the coastline safe, clean, and slide ares properly maintained.

In addition to @Jaxk‘s point, I would like to suggest that a lot of the political disagreement you see in Congress and the media is more or less staged to make sure that those Facebook conversations you’re looking at never resolve into anything productive. You are being distracted by a well-organized game so that they can pretend to take political risks while keeping their 99% incumbency rate. No need to worry about the people coming together and changing things when they’re too busy bickering about the past to think about the future.

This is why the Tea Party managed to mess things up so much for both major parties. Only the audience is supposed to take the game seriously, and they’re definitely not supposed to get out of their seats and walk onto the stage.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP, Chips) were an early manifestation of militarized police.

Also, ranchers and farmers (mostly enormous corporations) have a lot at stake to make their part of the state orientied toward property rights.

And that racist basketball owner, Donald Sterling, tenuously the owner of the LA Clippers, is politically radical beyond the Tea Party.

As far as the utility of nationhood, the U.S. has untapped and squandered potential at the moment. We would be better off without larcenous ‘trade’ agreements that defer our sovereignty to unelected people. WTO, NAFTA… I’m lookin’ at you. In the wings are TPP, TAFTA/TTIP.

The variety of resources across the U.S. make the place pretty synergistic right now. I think with some renovation of our trade policies we could internally produce for internal use a lot more than we do today and cut our trade deficit dramatically.

While @Jaxk raises a valid point, the current divide is untenable and unsustainable. A couple of decades ago, we had two parties with differing views on what was best for America; now we have two Americas. Look at the economic differences between red and blue states, and how some places have a Christian version of Sharia law while others are more like the rest of the industrialized world.

However, the average voter actually is more moderate (purple, if you will) than the legislatures they elect. Yet, that brings up a different divide; one between our government and the people they’re supposed to serve.

From The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams):

Ford: It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…

Arthur: You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?

Ford: No, nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.

Arthur: Odd, I thought you said it was a democracy.

Ford: I did. It is.

Arthur: So, why don’t people get rid of the lizards?

Ford: It honestly doesn’t occur to them. They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.

Arthur: You mean they actually vote for the lizards?

Ford: Oh yes, of course.

Arthur: But, why?

Ford: Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?

Arthur: What?

Ford: I said, have you got any gin?

Arthur: I’ll look. Tell me about the lizards.

Ford: Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them. They’re completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone’s got to say it.

Arthur: But that’s terrible,

Ford: Listen, bud, if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say “That’s terrible” I wouldn’t be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.

@SavoirFaire gets all the points for quoting from Hitchhikers!