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 half voting Republican and half Democrat. Over a few years and decades, there are swings, and someone always has the White House and some complex Congressional majority. Even if you have a Congressional majority, however, you may need 60 votes in the Senate, and even then you may not get all of your party members to vote with you. This leads to a political stalemate, broadly speaking. Neither party gets a majority sufficient enough to cause meaningful change. Of course, this is the way James Madison and Thomas Jefferson designed it, deliberately so, in the 1780s. For them, they had just achieved near-perfection in government, so why make it easy to change the policies? Whether you like it or not, things did eventually drift away from James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's carefully constructed balance of power. After the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, a movement began to increase government power on almost every level in society. We soon got the income tax, drug prohibition, a central bank and a plethora of welfare programs. In this process, federal government spending as a percentage of GDP increased from under 3% to 20% 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 in America as to where to go from here. Some people think 25% of federal government spending to GDP is way too little; other people think it is way too much. Neither side is happy, and political division is as great or greater than ever. In our current Republic, realistically much won't happen regardless of who wins in 2012. If a Democrat wins, Republicans in Congress will most likely have sufficient votes to block most expansion of government. If a Republican wins, Democrats in Congress will most likely 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 keep saying that their political nirvana is a country with higher federal taxes, more federal regulations and more federal government spending. Well, let them have it! If they had a decisive political majority in a country that's half of America, they could have all of that -- and more. How could they possibly complain? Same goes for the Republicans. They want fewer federal taxes, less federal spending and less federal regulation. Divide the country into two, and they could have it all. I don't hear a single Republican who would complain. How would this work, practically? One party could have no more than 25 of the current states, where a minimum of 23 would be geographically consecutive, assuming the same entity also had Hawaii and Alaska. It would probably have to leave room for each half having at least one state on each of the two oceans. Practically speaking, that would, in turn, mean that California and Washington state could not be 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 the population. The real solution here would be one of natural selection, where people would do it over some period of time. Americans moved before, such as in the 1800s when they headed West, and they still move today where some states show large net immigration numbers and other states have been de-populating for at least a decade or two. With more change and distinction, chances are that this new migration would be faster and more pronounced.