Note that at the moment this isn't some issue that I feel strongly about, but just an interesting idea that I want to run through other people and hear their opinion of;

Now, before I explain the concept, let me note my stance on compromises and why I think they're bad.

Suppose we have Country A which is populated by two sides, each taking up 50% of the population. Lets call them Liberals and Conservatives.
Now we have an issue, say, developing radical Life Extension technologies, and suppose that each side takes a different stance on it; in this example the Liberals would be strongly for and the Conservatives would be strongly against.

Now what would come out of such a situation in a democratic society?

A compromise would be made.

A compromise that would supposedly please both sides and give them what they want - in this case Life Extension technologies would still be developed to please the Liberals, but they would be developed very slowly as to not disappoint the Conservatives.

Now I suppose you're thinking that this is fine since everyone`s happy, and I suppose that everyone is happy, at least for the next four to eight years until the current president is changed.

However, what will happen in the long run, say not four to eight years, but forty to eighty years later?

No matter how slowly you develop a technology, it will still become complete someday. So as long as you develop it at all, a day will come where despite the Conservative protests of "not developing Life Extension technology", life extension technology will come knocking at their doors. However at the same time because we developed it slowly, by the time it'll come the original Liberals who voted for its development will have considerably died out of old age.

In other words, in the long run both sides loose .

Anyway, that was just an atop of the head simplified example meant to illustrate the fact that the current system is a bit flawed and could use improvement. And here's what I suggest:

What if Country A became divided into two states, each governed by either Liberal or Conservative ideals?
(And just to clarify for the future, I'm not talking about the kind of division we saw during East-West Germany or the US civil wars; for this to work both states would have to cooperate and allow people to freely pass from one side to another)
Think of all the benefits this would cause:

-First of all, a whole bunch of completely different and sometimes radical policies could be enacted in both states and everyone would still be happy
-You'd be always surrounded by like minded people. Of course they would still disagree on a lot of things, but at least they would agree on the fundamental living principles, which would be a start.
-If you were a minority, say Gay, then you could safely live in the Liberal part of the country without being afraid of getting shunned.
-Architecture would become more diverse (one side could concentrate on traditional architecture, while the other would have modern one). And if you don't think that's a problem just come visit England where every single city is covered in red brick. Blech.
-And so on, there's a whole bunch of other benefits that I haven't mentioned here.

Also, we don't have to limit ourselves to just two states. We could do what the US did with their 51 state and have each one go in a different direction (eg environmentalism). We could also allocate one state for the people/minorities who either don't fit anywhere else or prefer the old school mishy-mashy society.

So, any opinions?

sounds like Game Theory could come in handy

Oooh, I love game theory being applied to politics.

If I understand it properly, in this case it would mean that the idea is feasible since both sides are able to maximize their gain without stepping on each others toes.

Yay.

Maybe it would have been best if Abraham Lincoln had not insisted on holding the Union together. Would there still be slavery in the south? Probably not.