Well i mean, it's *less* drastic than trying to partition the country into two separate countries based on the geographic urban/rural split.
Wow. I have dinner with a 90 year old Air Force Veteran twice per week. He served on Air Force One for Lyndon Johnson. He bowls on 2 of my league teams with my wife and I. Would you be the one to tell him that he can no longer vote, and you would nullify his vote for the past 25 years? On what grounds would you say he no longer has the right to vote? He hasn't given enough to his country? He's too old to hold a logical thought? I'll duck when you tell him that... he has many guns older than me.
I mean, you're the one who wants drastic action to deal with the political divide, and a large part of it boils down to the oldest generation voting against the future of the nation. When 65 and older votes 80/20 and then 55 and under votes 20/80 on the same issue. That's a large part of what kept Jim Crow around for so long. And then the people supporting got out of the way (ie, died) and we're all better for it. If you want drastic and dramatic action yea, your buddy isn't going to be around for the consequences of his choices in all likelihood, no real reason for him to not step aside. It's certainly preferable to conducted a mass expulsion from geographic regions like you effectively proposed.
Still can't get over that election? Donald Trump was not only ahead in the Electoral College... he was ahead in popular vote as well... until they brought in the count from California. California gave Hillary a whopping 55 electoral votes, winner take all, plus 4.3 million votes more than Trump. According to your logic, we all should have just sat it out and watched California choose the President. That's not how it works... that's not how it has ever worked... and you think, because you lost, we must change it now. Once again... we are not a Democracy... we are a Republic. Each state also has two Senators, regardless of state population.
hooooooie, so guess you're real sore about the popular vote thing. you do know there are tons of systems that aren't the electoral college and all it's bullshit that still enable geographic preference. And i mean, how dare you not even further discount the votes of a population group that makes up 10% of the US population.
I mean, since you *loooove* the electoral college so much, take the simplest change; abandon the pretense of 1 man 1 vote, since it's bullshit as far as presidential elections go, and then use the current electoral college to weight the results from each state, and then use that weighted popular vote to pick the winner. For exmaple since Californa's very existance offends you so:
Cali's got 55 of 538 votes, and works out to about 0.102 as a weight factor.
Trump got 31.62%, which works out to about 3.23% after normalizing it, and clinton got 61.73% , which works out to about 6.31%.
Repeat for say texas, 38 electoral votes and works out to about 0.07063197026
Trump got 52.23% and Clinton 43.24% which works out to 3.69% and 3.05% respectively.
Continue that on for all 50 states and DC, and the weighted percentages will total up to 100% across all candidates assuming you carry enough digits in your calculation. Keeps your precious geographic weighting, gets rid of the winner takes all nonsense. It's even better at ensuring each state gets represented, since there's now no such thing as a red or blue state, forcing candidates to actually spend time on each state to try and carry as much as possible.
Extra points for using IRV.