Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Eddie_Bradford on August 22, 2002, 02:09:49 pm

Title: Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on August 22, 2002, 02:09:49 pm
Yes that's right folks in off presidential year elections Delaware's voting population is almost the same as Wyoming (and in '94 it was actually less).  Combine this with the fact that Delaware is the best state for jobs and it's hard to ignore it as a leading possibility.  I think it's best for jobs because it is within commuting distance to 2 major cities.  A third major city is a little to far to commute to.  Biggest problem I'd say is voting sentiments which are lukewarm.  Until Roth lost they had 1 republican Senator and 1 Dem. and 1 Republican representative.  Now I think they have 2 D. Senators.  Anyway I'd describe the state as mildly Republican but sorta the bland NE Republican type.  Anyway we could control the entire state with a total of 50,000 votes.  current voters in off presidential election 180k with us there 200k to win half of the seat by getting 50% of the vote we would need 50k votes.  Obviously we can't be that perfectly spread out but still think about how achivable that number is.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Emerson on December 12, 2002, 11:51:52 am
No responses to this since last August?
Sounds interesting to me.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on December 12, 2002, 12:39:03 pm
Yeah no kidding!  Delaware is one of my favorite choices because it has quite a low population and an even lower voting population especially in off presidential years.  If I recall correctly then ususally there is approx the same number of voters in off presidential year election as Wyoming and on presidential years there are still less voters than almost any other state.  

This combined with the fact the Delaware EASILY within commuting distance of 2 major metropolitan areas makes it the best choice in my opinion.

If this project is going to work it will need to be near to a large metropolitan area where people can actually find jobs!  Boise just doesn't make the cut, to small, not enough professional jobs or economic diversity where most people could find a job in their field.  None of the Western states make the cut in my opinion because people just won't be able to find jobs there.

-Eddie
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 12, 2002, 04:08:40 pm
Fewer than 20,000 people voted in the Democrat and Republican primaries in Delaware in 2002.  There was no governor's race this year, but still...intriguing.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Emerson on December 12, 2002, 04:47:41 pm
I agree though, we're going to need jobs. I work in a computer IT environment, partially mainframe, partially Unix.
I have looked on the net, etc and see not very many jobs of this kind in the Dakotas, or Wyoming.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: varrin on December 13, 2002, 01:25:52 pm
I wouldn't rule out Idaho, but Deleware would be one of my top choices as well.  The down side(s) to Deleware are that many people will have to go out of state for job purposes.  Though that's not such a big deal, it does mean we'll have strong ties with other states and some of the laws and taxes associated with them.

There's *no* scheduled air service in DE.  Also DE has much higher housing prices than the western candidates.

The weather, however, is significantly better than NH, VT, and ME, though it lacks the diversity available in the west (particularly Idaho).

V-

Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 15, 2002, 03:52:52 pm
I agree totally.  Delaware is my personal favorite.

I also think that if Delaware was picked, the number of people we could get to move to it would be much greater than the number of people we could get to move to any other state.

Don't forget!  The important thing is not the state's population, it's the PERCENTAGE of the state's voters that are free state people.  If another state had half the number of voters, but we could only get a third of the amount of people to move there (and stay) that we could in Delaware, that state would be a worse choice than Delaware.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 15, 2002, 04:03:36 pm
Another important point:

It would require less money and resources to broadcast the libertarian message in a state with a small land area like DE, NH, or VT than a big one with people scattered over hundreds of miles.

For example, there would be fewer TV stations needed to reach the population, billboards would be seen by more people, and driving distances would be greatly reduced.  (Driving distances are very important to me, since I plan on being a full time activist going to every significant event in the state!)
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: varrin on December 16, 2002, 04:57:43 pm
I'm beginning to wonder why more attention hasn't been paid to DE.  Any guesses???
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 16, 2002, 06:04:37 pm
It's not a very romantic choice - I mean, who really wants to go to Delaware? ;)  Of course lack of romance shouldn't disqualify it...
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Racer X on December 16, 2002, 08:24:47 pm
Delaware does seem the most bland, along with the Dakotas.  It's probably the best for jobs, though.  Awfuly close to big liberal cities.  Does anyone know if Delaware is pushing for more gun control since the beltway sniper shootings?

Racer X
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: varrin on December 17, 2002, 04:20:13 pm
Sometimes the most bland makes for the best compromise.  I'm not sure I'd apply that logic to the Dakotas, but I certainly would to Deleware.

Deleware really does have a lot going for it.  How about climate:

Wilmington has the most weather data so I'll post that:

# of days per year with:
clear skies: 97
Partly cloudy:  104
Cloudy:  164
Average wind speed MPH: 9.0
Average snowfall: 20.5"
Average precip:  42.81"
Average number of precip days: 117
Average humidity morning/afternoon:  78/55
Annual average temp:  54.4

So the temperature is warm (even warmer than Boise, making it the warmest city in the FSP candidates), the wind isn't too much, and there's not a whole lot of snow.   In fact, in temperature, snow and wind, it's very comparable to Boise.  It's more humid, significantly more rainy and less sunny than Boise.  

Deleware was somewhere recently ranked #1 in the nation for economic freedom (for whatever that's worth).  Clearly Deleware is *very* business friendly and access to employment is easy.  Wilmington has a good job market, particularly for financial services.  Philly is an easy commute as is Baltimore and the DC area.

The population is low, the voting population is low, voter turnout is low, and as was pointed out in this thread, the number of people voting in the primaries was *very* low this year.  Based on these factors, it appears that Deleware could be easy to influence with our target of 20,000 people.  It is more compact, so a smaller number of activists could cover a larger percentage of the physical area of the state, potentially making our most active activists more effective than they could be in a geographically large and climatalogically unfavorable state like Wyoming.

That's all I've got for now.

V-

Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 24, 2002, 01:31:13 am
Another important point:

It would require less money and resources to broadcast the libertarian message in a state with a small land area like DE, NH, or VT than a big one with people scattered over hundreds of miles.

Then why is it that according to the State Data page, 3 of the 5 western states plus Alaska have lower election expenditures? DE is #6, MT #7, but NH (another "small" state) is #10, most expensive. Cost is not going to be determined by how much area there is to cover, but by how much the Rep/Dem candidates typically spend.

As far as the climate goes, DE is the least attractive to me precisely because of the humidity and heat. I grew up in MS, not one of the cold northern states. I loved living in Chicagoland and love north central PA, at least for the climate. All of the other states have climates that I find better than DE, although they present a greater challenge for growing the heirloom tomatoes I want.

And DE is the one state I opted out of. Although I have several personal reasons for not wanting to move there, that is not why DE is off my list (or AK would have been, too). The current gun laws ("may issue") are an indication to me that it is the wrong state to go to. We can't take our guns and my husband is training to be a gunsmith. So another state would be better since we wouldn't immediately need to change the concealed carry law and my husband would have a better opportunity to support his family.

Diana
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 24, 2002, 11:42:45 pm
Another thing - Of all the states on our list, only NH has a smaller percentage of people receiving welfare.  Federal spending AND state spending per capita is also lower than any other state on our list, except NH.  What is this about it being so socialist??  I just don't see that when I look at the numbers.

Politically, it is also very close between Republican and Democrat, which would be very useful for us.

And don't forget - ONLY THREE COUNTIES!!!
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 25, 2002, 12:19:05 am
Ted, what's this thing you have about 3 counties?  ;)

Actually I think more is better in this respect. Gets us lots of different venues to get up to speed in government, and with only 3 counties it means they are high-stakes counties with large governments themselves - i.e., open only to professionals. I've seen big-county government, and small-county government, and the latter is much more accessible.

About buying ads on TV stations, I think it would be wasteful in Delaware because the broadcast area would include a lot of out-of-state viewers. We'd be paying for something of no use to us.

Do we really know how many FSPers would go to Delaware, compared to Wyoming or Idaho? I wouldn't necessarily assume it's going to be a strong draw, as you seem to.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 25, 2002, 01:33:30 am
Another thing - Of all the states on our list, only NH has a smaller percentage of people receiving welfare.

Ted, where do you get your information? I once read in a post of yours (perhaps to the email list?) that most of your research had been done using a road atlas. Have you spent any time reading the older threads and posts in these forums? Even done a search? The idea that DE has the 2nd lowest # of welfare recipients of our 10 states didn't sound right to me, so I did a search. See reply #76 here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35;start=75

There is a link to the source of the data.

Also more recent data (for June 2002):
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/percent_2002_rev.htm

DE with a smaller population than ID has more welfare recipients than ID, therefore a larger percentage of its population.

And # of counties or # square miles is not going to determine how easily we can accomplish our goals. A big part is going to be how much work we have to do to get a state we consider free. So how many of the current laws will have to change or be done away with. How much of the population will have to do a complete turn-around in their thinking to vote with us. As has been pointed out before, campaigning does happen in the large area states, so we can do it there too. I simply believe DE is the worst choice of the 10 we can make and would like to read some real facts backing up that it isn't, not just how the climate is the best (very subjective) or will require less driving than any other state.

Diana
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: glen on December 25, 2002, 10:10:37 am
Delaware is sometimes downwind of Washington DC.

Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are sometimes downwind of New York City.

Both cities are still considered to be prime targets of suicide bomber - religious fanatics who are trying to get or may have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

In addition there is the possibility that Washington DC and New York City will need to be evacuated. Those tens of millions of terrorized, cold, hungry, leaderless, lawless, homeless, moneyless, sick and dying people will very quickly flood the surrounding countryside for hundreds of miles in all possible directions.

However remote the possibility of such events occurring, if Delaware, Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire are chosen as the free state, decisions must be made by everyone – on the individual level to the state policy level - concerning how much or how little help will be given to the refugees.

The following is a link to CNN weather for the northeast US and southeast Canada:

http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/NAmerica/us.reg/sat.ne.anim.html

The following is a link to the Harvard School of Public Health. There are two short and to the point articles here concerning:

1) The evidence that smallpox can be released in aerosol form which up until now was not considered possible.

2) A dirty bomb would require the evacuation of Manhattan.

http://www.biosecuritysummit.com/news_research/index.php?issue=7

Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Robert H. on December 26, 2002, 01:02:39 am
Delaware is sometimes downwind of Washington DC.

Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are sometimes downwind of New York City.

You raise good points, Glen.  However remote the possibility of such things actually taking place, it is arguably much less remote than before 9/11, and particularly since our government seems determined to stick its nose into every hornet's nest across the globe.  Rumsfeld is now off telling the North Koreans that we can fight two wars at the same time if we need to, so its anybody's guess as to where all of this is going to end.

If such events as you describe were actually to take place, we would be guaranteed to see martial law (or a euphemism with equivalent meaning)immediately instituted from North Carolina to Maine, if not throughout the entire country to at least some extent.  A free state government located anywhere near such a disaster would not be able to protect itself or its citizens from the inevitable results of such a catastrophe.

In addition to the terror threats, New York and DC are the media and political capitals of the statist machine itself, and we would do well to avoid proximity to such areas in any case.  In all fairness though, I suppose that Maine would be potentially less affected by such factors, and Vermont would be the safest bet of all the eastern states.  
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 26, 2002, 02:47:01 am
Another thing - Of all the states on our list, only NH has a smaller percentage of people receiving welfare.

Ted, where do you get your information? I once read in a post of yours (perhaps to the email list?) that most of your research had been done using a road atlas. Have you spent any time reading the older threads and posts in these forums? Even done a search? The idea that DE has the 2nd lowest # of welfare recipients of our 10 states didn't sound right to me, so I did a search. See reply #76 here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35;start=75

There is a link to the source of the data.

Also more recent data (for June 2002):
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/percent_2002_rev.htm

DE with a smaller population than ID has more welfare recipients than ID, therefore a larger percentage of its population.

And # of counties or # square miles is not going to determine how easily we can accomplish our goals. A big part is going to be how much work we have to do to get a state we consider free. So how many of the current laws will have to change or be done away with. How much of the population will have to do a complete turn-around in their thinking to vote with us. As has been pointed out before, campaigning does happen in the large area states, so we can do it there too. I simply believe DE is the worst choice of the 10 we can make and would like to read some real facts backing up that it isn't, not just how the climate is the best (very subjective) or will require less driving than any other state.

Diana



Whoops!  I goofed.  I went back to my data sheets (fromu) and the actual statistic was "Persons below poverty, percent".  NH had the lowest with 6.5%, DE came in second with 9.2%.  Worst was MT, with 14.6%.

The spending figures came from the "Gov1" and "Gov2" columns of the FSP State Data Charts.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Kelton on December 26, 2002, 10:52:00 am

 . . .  in other words skipping out on the hard questions. Solving a high caseload with libertarian solutions would be a great way to defuse some of the media criticism.

The statement above opens the case for a certain question on theory about which state.

It becomes more and more obvious that Idaho and Wyoming enjoy a certain culture of liberty among a larger percentage of its population. So, do we chose one of these states in the intermountain West for that reason, or do we chose a state that has other factors, such as Delaware with its small campaign circuit, low voter turn-out and low level of federal land?

The thought of claiming Delaware as the crown jewel of libertarian-oriented freedoms makes me giddy with excitement at even the prospect.  Its location is no less strategic today in the heart of places of power and statism than it was when General Washington at Delaware saw a military turning point or when Jefferson called Delaware a 'diamond' for its desirability as a Dutch colony also contended for by the Swedes.

As Joe as pointed out so many times already, even with 20,000 activists we will have more than enough work cut out for ourselves, which brings us to this very subjective and emotional, yet legitimate question on theory for which state:  if we should succeed in Delaware, the cause for not only rejoicing, but for a prideful sense of vindication will be great; on the other hand, how humiliating will our defeat be if 20,000 activists do not succeed in Wyoming!
 
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 26, 2002, 12:37:32 pm
Another important point:

It would require less money and resources to broadcast the libertarian message in a state with a small land area like DE, NH, or VT than a big one with people scattered over hundreds of miles.

Then why is it that according to the State Data page, 3 of the 5 western states plus Alaska have lower election expenditures? DE is #6, MT #7, but NH (another "small" state) is #10, most expensive. Cost is not going to be determined by how much area there is to cover, but by how much the Rep/Dem candidates typically spend.


In high budget campaigns, most of your money is going to media advertising.  In high density areas this would be radio and TV, in low density areas this would be newspaper and direct mail.

In low budget campaigns, most of your money is going to yard signs, flyers, brochures, door hangers, and other lit pieces that volunteers will be distributing door to door.  In high density areas this can be done more quickly than in low density areas.

In low budget campaigns, the candidate's physical presence is critical, since people are not seeing him on TV.  The candidate needs to make up for this by traveling all over his district.

I am assumming that we will be running low budget campaigns.  If we are not, we could give Western states a harder look.


As far as the climate goes, DE is the least attractive to me precisely because of the humidity and heat. I grew up in MS, not one of the cold northern states. I loved living in Chicagoland and love north central PA, at least for the climate. All of the other states have climates that I find better than DE, although they present a greater challenge for growing the heirloom tomatoes I want.


You don't know what  humidity and heat are all about until you have lived in south Florida.  I was in D.C. this August (to attend Leadership Institute classes), and they were complaining about what they called a "heat wave".  Ha!  Broward didn't get that cool until late September.

Anyway, I am not concerned with the climate because I will be living there, I am concerned with the climate because I will be CAMPAIGNING there.  I am going to be driving all across the state to help out the various candidates and referendum.  I am going to be walking door to door knocking on doors, and doing lit drops.

How long are the distances between cities?  Will there be mountainous terrain in my way?  How much snow will I be driving and walking through?  How many days will our efforts be shut down because of extreme weather?  (This won't hurt our wealthier opponents as much as it will hurt us!)  These are the questions that we all need to be asking.


And DE is the one state I opted out of. Although I have several personal reasons for not wanting to move there, that is not why DE is off my list (or AK would have been, too). The current gun laws ("may issue") are an indication to me that it is the wrong state to go to. We can't take our guns and my husband is training to be a gunsmith. So another state would be better since we wouldn't immediately need to change the concealed carry law and my husband would have a better opportunity to support his family.

Diana

That is an issue I won't argue with you about.  You will need an income.  Is there a place where you could live and take your guns that would be right across the state line?
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 26, 2002, 12:52:02 pm
Ted, what's this thing you have about 3 counties?  ;)

Actually I think more is better in this respect. Gets us lots of different venues to get up to speed in government, and with only 3 counties it means they are high-stakes counties with large governments themselves - i.e., open only to professionals. I've seen big-county government, and small-county government, and the latter is much more accessible.

About buying ads on TV stations, I think it would be wasteful in Delaware because the broadcast area would include a lot of out-of-state viewers. We'd be paying for something of no use to us.

Do we really know how many FSPers would go to Delaware, compared to Wyoming or Idaho? I wouldn't necessarily assume it's going to be a strong draw, as you seem to.

How many counties you want depends on your goal.  If your goal is to win just one county, more is better.  If you want to win in all of them, fewer is better.

NH is a good example of what I am talking about.  With 400 state house seats, it is not to hard to find at least one where you can concentrate your forces and win.  However, to get a majority, you would need to win over 200 races.  This is more difficult logistically than if there were fewer seats.

With three counties, you would only need three voter lists, and know only three sets of rules.  You would have only three races for supervisor of elections and other one-to-a-county posts.

Forget TV.  We won't have the money for it.  We will be doing most of our work door to door.  If our opponents want to waste their money broadcasting to a lot of out-of-state viewers, let them.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 26, 2002, 03:15:44 pm
Well, Ted, you ignored my point about the problem with 3 counties - that they will be all high-stakes counties. It won't be a disaster if we mess up with one county in a 15-county state. It would be if we did that in a 3-county state.

However I think the number of counties is pretty far down on the list of important criteria!  :)

I've lived in both Florida and Delaware. You are right, there is no comparison on the humidity. Still, a Wyoming summer is better than a Delaware one. As to driving around, I guess it depends on where you want to spend your time: driving long distances down empty roads in beautiful scenery, or stuck in suburban traffic.  ;)

I'm not sure where you are coming from on campaign spending. According to the state data page, campaign spending is all over the map, but Delaware does not look so great. There are western states with higher spending, and those with lower spending. I think that criterion needs to be fixed to reflect a per-House seat and per-Senate seat cost, but still Delaware doesn't look so great.

Quote
if we should succeed in Delaware, the cause for not only rejoicing, but for a prideful sense of vindication will be great; on the other hand, how humiliating will our defeat be if 20,000 activists do not succeed in Wyoming!
Well, no matter where we are, success will be great and defeat humiliating. I guess I'm not as giddy as you, exitus  ;) but I agree this point is subjective.

Quote
Welfare caseload? Here it is again. But too much emphasis on it in selecting a state could open the FSP to accusations that its libertarians want a state where they don't have to deal with poor people, in other words skipping out on the hard questions.
Yes, that's a point, which is why I'm reluctant to select a state which already has a strong economy. Most people are concerned about the state of the economy these days, and it may become even more so if things keep dragging along. For us to pick a weak-economy state and turn it around is what gets me giddy.  ;)

But welfare is an important issue, and even more so, "farm welfare". We will have a serious problem pushing off federal "help" if there are too many people at the slop trough. Ordinary in-state welfare programs are not so bad; those people don't vote much and they won't be able to stop us; and since we will be helping the economy they will pick up jobs anyway.

Montana does poorly in the poverty measures, I think, because of its large Indian population. That shouldn't be a problem for us as I don't think residents of Indian reservations vote on off-reservation races, do they?
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Windcatcher on December 26, 2002, 10:26:17 pm
I've been following this project for a while, and I applaud what you're all trying to accomplish :)

As much as it would make it REALLY easy for me were you to choose DE, I decided to register on the forum because I think there's something you all really need to know about DE.

Strictly IMHO, hell will freeze over before people in DE go along with the FSP.  I live in Delaware County, PA and work as a consultant in DE.  The state line is a whole three miles away, and I buy everything I can there. I'm somewhat familiar with northern DE.

Delaware is really two different states. North of the C&D, it's really crowded, and VERY leftist (If you don't believe me, go buy a street map showing northern New Castle County and southern Delaware County (it's in PA). The population density difference is striking).

Here's the scoop, from what I can see: it's true that there is NO sales tax, and very low property taxes (roughly 33% to 40% of those in PA and far less than half of those in NJ). This is also a problem, though: because of the low PROPERTY taxes and the huge number of low-paying retail jobs, it attracts a whole lot of people from PA and NJ who are of little means (i.e., they move there and take those retail jobs). Far more often than not, these people are die-hard Democratic voters. The income tax is progressive, and at the high scale, it hits pretty hard: every dollar you make over $60,000 is taxed at 5.95%. While there is no sales tax (as opposed to a 6% sales tax in PA), it means that, if you like to save your money instead of spend it all, it really hurts since you get hit with the tax before you can invest it or gain interest. By contrast, the income tax in PA is a flat 2.8%, so people with higher incomes (and likewise, the skills that earn them those incomes) tend to live in PA. This is one reason why neighboring counties in PA tend to be more conservative than New Castle County (DE).

Wilmington. Hmmm, how do I describe it in a flattering way? Well, it isn't Chester :) (I went to high school in Chester, PA, so if anyone on this forum lives there and is offended, well, what can I say...it's TRUE) .Wilmington is, however, a Democratic stronghold. I'm sorry, but I really think that nut is uncrackable. A hundred years from now the inner city neighborhoods will be just as Democratic as they are today, if not more so.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 27, 2002, 01:53:17 am
Thanks for your input, Windcatcher.

I know big cities can really put the kibosh on freedom; we've been fighting Portland the same way, here in Oregon.

Although 5.95% income tax doesn't sound so bad when you're used to 9%!  :o
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: wes237 on December 27, 2002, 11:08:00 am
I do not want to move to any state that already has a state income tax.

I live in Texas with no state income tax ... mostly sales and property taxes. Politicians, about yearly, will throw out hints of the need for a state income tax to test the potential for the people to accept one. The hints are always coated with "well we are going to experience a budget shortfall if we don't do something different. " Of course they always say that services will have to be reduced, and only mention basic services, and never considering the idiotic pork spending.

I have never figured out why government budgets are always coming up short ... except for the reason that our tax dollars are being spent to "grow" government and not for the services we are supposedly paying for. Why can't people who vote for the Bushs' and Gores' of the world ever see this?

Nope, I'll take a pass if the FSP moves to a state that already has a state income tax. And there is only one way I'd change my thinking on that and that is ... if the state collects a tax, and gives the feds a share (to protect our shores and deliver the mail) in lieu of the state's citizens filing or paying any federal taxes whatsoever.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 27, 2002, 01:27:28 pm
Okay, so percentage on welfare or below poverty, both point to problems we can fix. Many think the poor will suffer under libertarianism, the fact that things don't get worse but actually better, regardless the circumstances when we get there, should be proof enough of how good lib. is for the poor.

DE as crown jewel? If succeeding in DE is cause "for a prideful sense of vindication", but not succeeding in WY is cause for great humiliation, seems to me the idea that WY is much more likely to succeed than DE is obvious. Why choose the hard state just because of the sense of greater satisfaction at accomplishing a more difficult task? It will be difficult no matter which state we choose. I still am looking for receptive citizenry and shorter road to freedom. I don't believe DE fits either criterion.

Ted, if I remember correctly, we are hoping to run campaigns which have similar budgets to those who currently run as Dems or Reps. For instance, in WY, I got the figures for money raised for the 2002 elections (found a link somewhere on this forum, sorry I don't have it available). Divide by 20,000 = $97. DE was more than 3 times this. So the lower-election-cost states mean we will be able to compete with the other candidates on even ground. And this is also one reason I support the idea of running as a Dem or Rep (whichever party is better for that county/district), we aren't counting on just FSPers for campaign dollars. So the cost of elections is an issue. The less money typically spent, the better for us. The more fair the campaign.

And Zxcv (?) pointed out in another thread that only the statewide races require statewide campaigning. How many are there? And we aren't planning to go for those for at least a couple of election cycles. By the time we get to the statewide races, I would expect that we would have more support for our ideas (they should be working by then, right? <G>), therefore more money, therefore easier travel, even in the largest state. Or am I really clueless about this stuff and not understanding anything I read here? (And I readily admit I don't understand everything, especially some of Joe's stuff.)

Climate: MS has an auful lot of heat and humidity and, no, DE does not compare to MS or FL. But, Ted, when do you plan on campaigning? Only the winter months? Doesn't most campaigning take place Mar-early Nov? Admittedly there are surprise late and early snowstorms, but for the most part you aren't going to have to wade through several feet of snow to get to people's front doors. I don't consider it a nonissue, but certainly not a major factor in choosing a state.

Will continue in another post since I am having computer trouble now.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 27, 2002, 02:22:09 pm
DE has so very little land. Even looking at lists comparing how much land is left in each state after taking out Fed and State owned, VT (with 2nd smallest area left) has more than DE *started* with. I do believe this is an issue for freedom, not just personal comfort/feelings. Those in more crowded conditions are generally going to want more done to protect them from their neighbors. I also believe the small amount of land available is going to deter many FSPers who really want more space. They might be able to stand the idea of NH, but DE? And then no real hunting, no concealed carry (though this can be changed, why choose a state where we have to?). Just not going to appeal to enough people.

I believe the large concentration of people in Wilmington, right next to Philly, is a problem. I think it will make our job harder, not easier. I believe a more rural population is in our favor. Those people will more likely not care what their neighbors are doing as they are less affected by them, can't see into their backyards and such. People stacked on top of each other are far more concerned about how other people's decisions affect them. They will be more concerned with city services like garbage removal, street upkeep. I live in very rural NCentral PA. We pay per bag for garbage pickup by a private company. My "housing development" has a committee that makes decisions about our private road upkeep. We have our own water. Electricity is provided by a co-op. The highways are still maintained by the county/state, but much around here isn't. And even those in the "big city" (pop 2400) in the county are annoyed by what the city council is charging them for water. It is a ridiculous amount. Around here (not that I am suggesting PA as a candidate state!), even the "city" people would welcome at least some of our ideas. I really don't think we'll have much luck in a state where half or more of the population is as heavily concentrated as DE (or NH, for that matter). We would have to win that heavy concentration of people to succeed. More spread out seems more feasible to me.

And I have read in a few posts a hint of what I have thought myself. The harder living in the state will be (whether climate or job finding), perhaps the more active the activists will be b/c they really meant it to move there despite knowing hardship was coming and can't let this fail, for them or their families. I don't recommend we all move to Fairbanks, AK, but making living too easy, giving up on freedom too easy, might be our downfall.

If I am missing something here, I would welcome correction. I am trying to understand everything that we are trying to do, all the factors involved, make lists, rank the states, and still run my household (which has a husband, nearly 4yo, 2 yo, and one on the way, plus looking for a puppy (I must be a masochist), and looking for the "perfect" family business that will transfer anywhere *and* we can afford to start up). I really enjoy reading and have tried to post when I had the time and I hope something to contribute. Thanks for reading and I do appreciate responses.

Diana
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 27, 2002, 05:25:37 pm
Ted, if I remember correctly, we are hoping to run campaigns which have similar budgets to those who currently run as Dems or Reps. For instance, in WY, I got the figures for money raised for the 2002 elections (found a link somewhere on this forum, sorry I don't have it available). Divide by 20,000 = $97. DE was more than 3 times this. So the lower-election-cost states mean we will be able to compete with the other candidates on even ground. And this is also one reason I support the idea of running as a Dem or Rep (whichever party is better for that county/district), we aren't counting on just FSPers for campaign dollars. So the cost of elections is an issue. The less money typically spent, the better for us. The more fair the campaign.


1.  There are two types of campaign costs - official costs that are recorded, and unofficial costs (mostly transportation) borne by volunteers  that do not show up on the expense reports.  (They only count as "in kind contributions" if you are actually driving the candidate or are directly producing materials that the campaign uses.)

I know of an activist in Florida whose transmission gave out after he drove and drove and drove all over Florida.  The cost of his car repairs are not going to appear on any official campaign expense report.

The campaigns we will be running will depend on volunteers much more than the campaigns of our opposition.

2.  In addition to state wide candidates, we will also be doing a lot of issue stuff, both for refrendums, and also for voter education.  This will take place across the state.

3.  We will probably not be running candidates for all available seats, because we will want to run winnable candidates, not just anybody we can get.  This means that there will be people living in a district with no local candidates who will be driving to those districts who have some.  My experience is that anything over 20-30 miles will be enough to keep at least some of them home.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 27, 2002, 08:24:46 pm
Quote
I do not want to move to any state that already has a state income tax.

I live in Texas with no state income tax ... mostly sales and property taxes.

Well, I certainly wouldn't downgrade any state because it has an income tax.

Most states I think have 2 out of 3 of the following: income tax, property tax and sales tax. Some have all 3! (Those are the ones to avoid.) I think only NH has just one of the three, right?

All three types of taxes have problems, but if I were trying to knock down taxes, I'd rather knock down an income or property tax than a sales tax. I think they would be easier to reduce than a sales tax. So a state without a sales tax would be the best in my opinion, although I don't think it's a huge advantage for us.

Many states have tried to bring in additional taxes - Oregon tried maybe 8 times in the last century to become a 3-tax state, but every time they try it they've been slapped down bad. They are trying to add a "temporary" couple of percent surcharge on top of their 9% income tax this January  :o , and they are going to be slapped down again. I'd be surprised if any state were capable any more of selling a 3rd tax to people, everyone feels burdened enough as it is.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: wes237 on December 27, 2002, 09:02:13 pm
I believe that state income taxes would be the most difficult to change as they are "across the board" for all residents of the state. State lawmakers are in control. With sales and property taxes, the local community governments have some say in adding or reducing the amounts according to their specific needs.

There is a certain pride in the residents of states that have no income tax.  They feel a bit more free in being one of the  minority states, and  they can better control the politicians at the local level when it comes to sales taxes and property appraisals.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Solitar on December 28, 2002, 12:51:29 am
To Diana and others to whom it may also apply,
Quote
Or am I really clueless about this stuff and not understanding anything I read here? (And I readily admit I don't understand everything, especially some of Joe's stuff.)
Please write of what that I wrote that you do not understand. I will endeavor to think on how to write and explain better. Please understand that it was all beyond my understanding at one time and most of it still is. Maybe somebody else on this forum can help us both.

Sincerely

P.S. Maybe this warrants another thread, but on what I certainly have little clue.
Maybe somebody can start a
Frequently asked questions (on pragmatic politics, not religion, or philosophy!)
Yet there are lots of threads with just such questions.
Where to start?

Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 28, 2002, 01:59:30 am
Please write of what that I wrote that you do not understand.

Joe, I don't know what to make of all the information you posted about the state legislatures (most obvious recent example). You write clearly, it is the information I sometimes don't understand the meaning or significance of.

Diana
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: thewaka on December 28, 2002, 02:21:16 am
The campaigns we will be running will depend on volunteers much more than the campaigns of our opposition.

Ted, do you have any facts to verify this? Are you assuming in all of your posts that we are running candidates under the LP? We first need to support people who are already in office who at least partly support our views. We will be there 4-6 years before putting forth our own candidates. By then, some reform should have taken place and we will have support for our ideas. And if we run as Dems or Reps, campaign funds are much easier to get.

Quote
2.  In addition to state wide candidates, we will also be doing a lot of issue stuff, both for refrendums, and also for voter education.  This will take place across the state.

Yes, it will take place across the state and FSPers will be across the state. No one person will *have* to travel the entire state. And statewide races are several election cycles away from the 5th year after the 20,000 are reached. Again, time to become known and "mainstream."

Quote
My experience is that anything over 20-30 miles will be enough to keep at least some of them home.

But remember these 20,000 volunteers traveled well over that for the possibility of freedom. How many will really balk at driving 50-60 miles (one hour or so)? Or even more?

Diana
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Solitar on December 28, 2002, 02:33:51 am
Diana wrote:
Quote
Joe, I don't know what to make of all the information you posted about the state legislatures (most obvious recent example). You write clearly, it is the information I sometimes don't understand the meaning or significance of.

I've answered that, or tried to, over on the legislature analysis thread.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=1002&start=15
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: TedApelt on December 28, 2002, 02:06:19 pm
The campaigns we will be running will depend on volunteers much more than the campaigns of our opposition.

Ted, do you have any facts to verify this? Are you assuming in all of your posts that we are running candidates under the LP? We first need to support people who are already in office who at least partly support our views. We will be there 4-6 years before putting forth our own candidates. By then, some reform should have taken place and we will have support for our ideas. And if we run as Dems or Reps, campaign funds are much easier to get.

If this wasn't true, we would be considering all the states, not just the low population ones.  We want low population ones because we are so short of money and people.

Quote
No one person will *have* to travel the entire state.

Many of us will be going from one city to another frequently.  There will always be state fairs, candidate debates, "meet the candidate" picnics, air shows, Octoberfests, and many other things that will be happening where we will want as many volunteers as possible to come and help out.  Most of us will not be living in whatever city these events are in whenever one occurs.

For example, if we chose Montana, I would be living in Billings.  Great Falls is a sizeable place, and would be having things happening there that I would be driving to.  Same with Helena, and some other places.  And, of course, people from those cities would be coming to Billings when something is happening there.


Quote
But remember these 20,000 volunteers traveled well over that for the possibility of freedom. How many will really balk at driving 50-60 miles (one hour or so)? Or even more?

Diana


1.  Once we get the 20K to commit to the move, whether or not we really will get that many to actually do it remains to be seen.  After reading many of the posts, I am very worried about the level of commitment FSP people really have.  It is not so much what they are saying as what they are NOT saying.  I am not hearing very many "war stories" of campaigns and voter education efforts.  I have not yet had anyone tell me that they too went to the Leadership Institute.  (Am I the only one????  If you went there, please speak up!)  I haven't even heard from anyone who went to the Campaigns & Elections training (as I have) or any other such school.  (If you went to one PLEASE POST ABOUT IT!)  Heck, I haven't heard anybody but Joe talk about going to city council meetings!  (I haven't either, but I will.  Thanks, Joe!)  And I am supposed to believe that the same people who won't do anything where they are now will move to a state and start doing things there?  I find this very hard to believe.

2.  Just because we CAN and WILL do something doesn't mean that it is a good idea.  Once again, every hour spent driving is an hour not spent doing something else.  Every dollar spent on gasoline, tires, and car repairs is a dollar not spent on brochures and newspaper ads.

I know what I want my time and money going to.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 28, 2002, 09:51:03 pm
I helped a conservative Democrat (!) run for state representative (attended campaign school with her on that one). I helped a conservative Republican run for Congress, twice. I've helped LP candidates run for Governor and other offices. I did substantial work on these campaigns, not just sticking stamps on letters.

I've been a "citizens' rep" on the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (our regional government), and worked in various "citizen participation organizations" for a while. I've testified several times in county commission meetings. I've been a founder and on the board of a campagin committee to run a particular slate of candidates for the county commission, partly successfully.

I've been treasurer of the state LP for a couple of years.

I was co-founder of the local franchise of a group that lobbied Congress to end the nuclear arms race.

I have written (I think) 4 arguments in opposition to statist ballot measures for the state voter's pamphlet, at $500 a whack (out of my pocket).

I've written literally hundreds of letters to the editor, and got a decent percentage of them published.

That enough for ya, Ted?  ;)
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: varrin on December 28, 2002, 10:47:12 pm
If you went there, please speak up!

I've been to a LI campaign school...  I never mentioned it before, but I guess it's important to *someone*.  ;-)

V-

Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: MLiq on December 30, 2002, 09:40:04 am
wes237 - Delaware may have income tax but it has no sales tax or property tax.

Also, the original post said Delaware was commutable to 2 major cities but I only know of Philly, am I missing something here? (I don't think so).
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: wes237 on December 30, 2002, 10:35:13 am
MLiq

yeah ... so ... and I said I am ok with sales and property taxes and not ok with state income taxes. One has some individual say in some taxes but not in taxes taken from your paycheck before the paycheck is given to you.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: MLiq on December 30, 2002, 11:40:32 am
I agree with you in that sales tax should be the only thing.  Of course property taxes are pretty much just as bad as income being unavoidable unless you rent property.  

Problem is that having no sales tax is what enables Delaware to get a lot of business from NJ & PA & MD people, so it benefits residents of the state maybe.  I figure if you live in a state with no sales tax you are probably going to save enough for a few percentage points of your income to be worth it, coupled with the no property tax which is pretty expensive here in FL along with 7% sales.  Of course the DE tax system unfairly taxes poor less than rich but not so much that it matters a whole lot.  The rich also would probably buy more things and spend more on property tax.
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Zxcv on December 30, 2002, 04:16:46 pm
MLiq, are you sure about Delaware not having a property tax? I thought the only states that had a single tax (out of the three: income, sales and property) were NH and Alaska (and the latter gets a pile of oil money so it's understandable). Is there some way to document this? I looked but couldn't find it.

Quote
I believe that state income taxes would be the most difficult to change as they are "across the board" for all residents of the state. State lawmakers are in control.

Actually, when I said income tax was easy to knock down, I was thinking of the use of the initiative. That kind of initiative would be simple to write and bullet-proof in terms of court challenges, and probably would be popular. Some of our states don't have the initiative, though.

Being "across the board" is actually an advantage, with the initiative. The more people not subject to a tax, the harder it is to reduce it because these don't have any personal incentive (and actually have some disincentives if they are on welfare, etc.)
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on January 10, 2003, 01:59:04 am
wes237 - Delaware may have income tax but it has no sales tax or property tax.

Also, the original post said Delaware was commutable to 2 major cities but I only know of Philly, am I missing something here? (I don't think so).

The other one I was talking about was Baltimore but I went back and checked out Yahoo maps and it's probably too far to be very practicle.  Although some people commute this far I agree that it is probably not a good option for most people.  Yahoo maps says it take 1 hour and 6 mins to drive from the edge of DE to the center of Baltimore.  If you could travel the speed limit or faster then it would probably be more like 50 mins but still that is quite far.  Since I don't know what traffic is like on I-95 and it's probably pretty bad this would be a very hard commute.  Although it might not be too bad if you have a job in NE Baltimore area.

I still think DE is a great option the population is so low and there are jobs within reach for everyone.  One could argue that the poor people would move out when our influx drives up the price of property.  But I agree native voting sentiments are the worst aspect of DE and the campaignes are expensive relatively speaking.  But still the voting population is so small that we could be a much bigger influence.  I went back and looked but to no avail....  as I recall less than 20,000 votes could elect the mayor of Wilmington to biggest city in DE.  Anyway it's a good choice and great job oportunities.

-Eddie
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: freedomroad on January 10, 2003, 03:50:33 am
I still think DE is a great option the population is so low and there are jobs within reach for everyone.  One could argue that the poor people would move out when our influx drives up the price of property.  But I agree native voting sentiments are the worst aspect of DE and the campaignes are expensive relatively speaking.  But still the voting population is so small that we could be a much bigger influence.  I went back and looked but to no avail....  as I recall less than 20,000 votes could elect the mayor of Wilmington to biggest city in DE.  Anyway it's a good choice and great job oportunities.

-Eddie

To clean this up, everywhere has a property tax.  AL has the lowest property taxes in the country.  DE does not even have low property taxes.  As far as I know, NH is the only state with a state property tax.  NH also has local property taxes.  DE has high imcome taxes and a high cost of living to go along with its high income.  Sales taxes are better than income taxes but because DE takes advantage of its no sales tax the state is stuck that way.  Certainly, sales taxes are much more fair than income taxes but it is too late in DE.  All we can do is try to lower the income tax is DE.  This will always be a poor spot for DE.  It would look kind of silly trying to call DE a libertarian/ small government state when it has an income tax.  Also, not many FSP members will move into Wilmington.  Wilmington is an expensive and dangerous city.  This is the worst city in DE.

The whole point of this thread is bad, also.  It does not matter what the vote was in 1994.  It matters what the highest recent vote is.  We have to think about potential voters.  Certainly, even more potential voters will start voting in DE, once we move there.  
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: varrin on January 11, 2003, 02:38:13 pm
If we go to Deleware, I'll probably be moving to Wilmington.  It's on the border with PA and I'd commute out of Philly.  I *like* living in suburban areas, so I'm sure Wilmington would be the obvious choice given the cirumstances.

And, as previously pointed out, DE is leagues ahead of ID in terms of population.  

V-
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: RidleyReport on March 15, 2003, 12:47:09 pm
Eddie wrote:

<<The campaigns we will be running will depend on volunteers much more than the campaigns of our opposition. >>

Eddie:

In hopes of making the "volunteer thing" happen while Activist Activator is stalled, I've started a volutneer soundoff thread which I hope you will all support:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1471
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: Hank on August 13, 2003, 10:26:26 am
Some of our city mice stated Delaware is the best choice. It has the best of city living, jobs, climate, and low population (half of Idaho or New Hampshire).  Others stress the vast population right next to Delaware from which liberty-starved people will flee across nearby borders to a Free State of Delaware.  They say income tax is repealable and Delware already has no sales tax which could make it a shopping mecca.

Eddie said:
Quote
I still think DE is a great option the population is so low and there are jobs within reach for everyone.

Varrin said:
Quote
If we go to Deleware, I'll probably be moving to Wilmington.  It's on the border with PA and I'd commute out of Philly.  I *like* living in suburban areas, so I'm sure Wilmington would be the obvious choice given the cirumstances.
And, as previously pointed out, DE is leagues ahead of ID in terms of population. 

FreedomRoad, if an east coast state is chosen, wouldn't Delaware be the better for to recruit the 100,000 that Joe keeps arguing about? There certainly is room in South Delaware for another 100,000 Porcupines and still have those large farms too!
Title: Re:Delaware! Less voters in 1994 than Wyoming
Post by: freedomroad on August 13, 2003, 11:06:01 am
DE might of had less voters in 1994 than Wyoming had in 2000.  However, in 2002, the most RECENT election, Wyoming only had

Republican Primary Voters: 95,590 (Think of what 20,000 activists can do)
Democratic Primary Voters: 38,118 (Think of what 20,000 activists can do.  Remember that the current Governor of Wyoming get less than 20,000 votes in this exact primary but still get elected to Governor.)

2002 General election:
188,028 voters TOTAL


In Niobrara County, there were only:
Republican voters in general election: 1,036 (Yes guys, it only takes 200-400 activists to elect totally new people to Niobrara County. )

D voters in general election: 169