Are state borders really an effective way to secede? In my state, probably because of 120 counties, 116 are red. But take a state like Illinois. Illinois right across the border from where I live is just like where I live, conservative. One does not have to go very far north to get into blue territory, until one gets to Chicago, which is solid blue. The point I am trying to make is, all of you who are advocating leaving the union by state, once you did it in certain states, you would have the same problem, a divided entity of liberal and conservative. Even in California, the blue is pretty much along the coast. There are many red counties in eastern California. On top of that new mix, one has no idea how the states bordering your state would react to passage, money, trade, etc. For example, in my small state, we are bordered by Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia. That is seven seperate, sovereign states with new laws we would have to deal with. Another question that comes to mind is, not to be too localized because it is all over the nation, who would control passage in the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers with states on both sides? If one lives in Utah, Wyoming, or say Montana on one side, or Vermont, Rhode Island, or Maine on the other, then this problem will probably not be a big deal. There are many states, more than the nine swing states, the the layout of the red-blue counties, the problem you are trying to battle now would still be there as an independent state, except there would be many more problems, because now you are dependent on states that border you. My final question to you is this. If you did manage to secede from the United States, and you were governor of an evenly divided state (red-blue), like say Ohio, and one of the blue counties wanted to secede because you are a red tyrannt, would you oppose such an action?