The following commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet's guest contributor program, which is separate from the company's news coverage.NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- Let's face it: America is a 50/50 country politically, with halfvoting Republican and half Democrat. Over a few years and decades,there are swings, and someone always has the White House and somecomplex Congressional majority. Even if you have a Congressionalmajority, however, you may need 60 votes in the Senate, and even thenyou may not get all of your party members to vote with you. This leads to a political stalemate, broadly speaking. Neither partygets a majority sufficient enough to cause meaningful change. Ofcourse, this is the way James Madison and Thomas Jefferson designedit, deliberately so, in the 1780s. For them, they had just achievednear-perfection in government, so why make it easy to change thepolicies? Whether you like it or not, things did eventually drift away fromJames Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's carefully constructed balanceof power. After the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, amovement began to increase government power on almost every level insociety. We soon got the income tax, drug prohibition, a central bankand a plethora of welfare programs. In this process, federalgovernment spending as a percentage of GDP increased from under 3% to20% a decade ago, and now most recently it jumped to 25% or more. >> Get your political and economic news on the go with TheStreet's iPad app. Here is the problem today: There is almost total disagreement inAmerica as to where to go from here. Some people think 25% offederal government spending to GDP is way too little; other peoplethink it is way too much. Neither side is happy, and politicaldivision is as great or greater than ever. In our current Republic, realistically much won't happen regardless ofwho wins in 2012. If a Democrat wins, Republicans in Congress willmost likely have sufficient votes to block most expansion ofgovernment. If a Republican wins, Democrats in Congress will mostlikely have enough votes to block most reductions in government.Neither side will be happy, either way.
I don't see why either side would object to this. Democrats keepsaying that their political nirvana is a country with higher federaltaxes, more federal regulations and more federal government spending.Well, let them have it! If they had a decisive political majority ina country that's half of America, they could have all of that -- andmore. How could they possibly complain? Same goes for the Republicans. They want fewer federal taxes, lessfederal spending and less federal regulation. Divide the country intotwo, and they could have it all. I don't hear a single Republican whowould complain. How would this work, practically? One party could have no more than25 of the current states, where a minimum of 23 would begeographically consecutive, assuming the same entity also had Hawaiiand Alaska. It would probably have to leave room for each half havingat least one state on each of the two oceans. Practically speaking,that would, in turn, mean that California and Washington state could notbe part of the same country -- the question is which would be which.Other than that, almost every combination would be possible. Clearly, this would have to entail moving, for close to half of thepopulation. The real solution here would be one of natural selection,where people would do it over some period of time. Americans movedbefore, such as in the 1800s when they headed West, and they stillmove today where some states show large net immigration numbers andother states have been de-populating for at least a decade or two.With more change and distinction, chances are that this new migrationwould be faster and more pronounced.