I think if you redefined the borders it would be better. Logically, different countries wouldn't have the same boarders as the states in the US. Rivers and such (like between IL and missouri/kentuky) are still going to exist most likely, but ones that are set on arbitrary longitute/latitude lines wouldn't exist (like between US and canada or between new york and pennsylvania) so I think you should set different boarders in general. Pull out a real map and find where new major rivers (like the missouri river) that would otherwise become a boarder if it wasn't arranged by some congress back in the day. Like almost all of the WEST US doesn't make sense from any kind of realistic point of view if they are going to be new countries, whether by war or otherwise.
you actually did the opposite, you created new boundries that didn't make sense like going over the mississipi and creating a new boarder just beyond it. Look up in canada, explain to me how they would divide countries at an angle that isn't a river or some other physical formation.
Also, we have a lot of republics here. Maybe that is the way of the future, it just seems strange that many different factions would all be republics. (why would california become a republic. That doesn't seem right, I don't think any kind of ruling would pass among only califonians to allow for a replublic to be put in place. They hate having representitives speak for them, power to the people! )
I hope you wanted feedback on your map... because that is what posting it here without much other info means to me.
your new avatar is great, except it seems a little heavy on the right side. (like the left side has a white border, but the upper right corner does not)