Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: ZionCurtain on December 01, 2002, 12:46:32 pm

Title: Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: ZionCurtain on December 01, 2002, 12:46:32 pm
With 20,000 activists considered not enough in a state with a population over 1.5 million, I decided to apply that thinking to the states we are choosing from. Based on 2001 census figures.

Idaho:
17,613 activists needed as of last year.

Maine:
17,155 activists

New Hampshire:
16,789

Montana:
12,059

Delaware:
10,615

South Dakota:
10,088

Alaska:
8,459

North Dakota:
8,459

Vermont:
8,174

Wyoming:
6,952

Note: Idaho and NH are both on pace to surpass the 1.5 million threshold. Idaho in 2007, NH in 2011. The current time frame FSP has set is by 2011. Does that effectively eliminate NH and Idaho? Maybe. I pose this question: Would it be easier to get 7,000 to Wyoming or 20,000 + to Idaho or NH? Thoughts anyone?
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: varrin on December 04, 2002, 02:16:43 am
How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Robert H. on December 04, 2002, 03:05:25 am
How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

Montana's a good compromise if you favor the west.  It's growing faster than Wyoming, but not as fast as Idaho, has more jobs and opportunity than North Dakota, doesn't share South Dakota's federal dependency issues, and isn't as subject to opt-outs as Alaska.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on December 04, 2002, 04:19:56 am
How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

Montana's a good compromise if you favor the west.  It's growing faster than Wyoming, but not as fast as Idaho, has more jobs and opportunity than North Dakota, doesn't share South Dakota's federal dependency issues, and isn't as subject to opt-outs as Alaska.

I think WY is a better western compromise.  WY is located in the center of the Western states, like MT is, but farther south and so it is much warmer.  WY has more acess to job opportunities than MT does if you consider out-of-state jobs.  Addtionally, Wyoming has lower taxes, less regulation, a pro-business lean, and more gun freedom.  WY is also much closer when it comes to weekend entertainment trips to quite large cities.  So if you want more job choices, better weather, and better entertainment WY beats MT.

Would you rather go to Denver and Salt Lake City for the weekend or Great Falls, MT?
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Robert H. on December 04, 2002, 04:26:20 am
I think WY is a better western compromise.  WY is located in the center of the Western states, like MT is, but farther south and so it is much warmer.  WY has more acess to job opportunities than MT does if you consider out-of-state jobs.  WY is also much closer when it comes to weekend entertainment trips to quite large cities.  So if you want more job choices, better weather, and better entertainment WY beats MT.

I agree that Wyoming is better than Montana.  In fact, I see Wyoming as the best state out of all ten candidates.  All of your points in regard to it are accurate, it just seems like Wyoming is one of the more polarizing states right now, so I don't know that it would work as a compromise state.  By referring to Montana, I was thinking more in terms of "what if Wyoming just won't happen for one reason or another?"
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: ZionCurtain on December 04, 2002, 11:03:21 am
How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

Montana could easily be my compromise state. If we decide to go that way.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: varrin on December 04, 2002, 05:45:05 pm
The above assertions are either not accurate or counting on out-of-state factors.  Wyoming is much snowier than Montana on average.  It's not *much* warmer.  In fact, there are significant parts of WY that are cooler than parts of MT.  On the whole, the weather in WY is worse, not better than MT.

As for the other factors (jobs, entertainment, etc.), you're relying on out of state cities for access.  In the winter, travel out of state will be difficult.  In fact, it would be more difficult in WY than in MT because of significantly worse air service there.  WY on its own doesn't have the jobs and entertainment that MT does.

V-

Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: ZionCurtain on December 05, 2002, 01:45:04 am
One thing against working out of state if we pick Wyoming is that we would still have to pay income taxes in that state.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: glen on December 05, 2002, 02:05:15 am
I think Montana would be a good compromise state too. But without a more or less organized collection of facts and fact based arguments, it is all just opinion and guess work.

I hope that someone will ‘adopt’ Montana and start gathering this information together. I will be glad to help where I can.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on December 05, 2002, 07:00:20 am
The above assertions are either not accurate or counting on out-of-state factors.  Wyoming is much snowier than Montana on average.  It's not *much* warmer.  In fact, there are significant parts of WY that are cooler than parts of MT.  On the whole, the weather in WY is worse, not better than MT.

Since WY is warmer...  That is what I was thinking of when I was considering weather.

Quote
As for the other factors (jobs, entertainment, etc.), you're relying on out of state cities for access.  In the winter, travel out of state will be difficult.  In fact, it would be more difficult in WY than in MT because of significantly worse air service there.  WY on its own doesn't have the jobs and entertainment that MT does.

V-

We all know that the winter is only 3 months.  However, is it really harder to get to Salt Lake City from WY than to Spokane from MT during the winter?  Is it harder to get to Rapid City, Billings, or Ft. Collins from WY than to Spokane from MT?  I doubt this.  Additionally, Salt Lake City is a much larger area than the Spokane.  Since Spokane and Billings are the only heavy populated areas within a short drive from MT there is clearly much less acess to entertainment in MT than there is in WY.  Maybe for 2 weeks out of the year it is very hard to drive from Cheyenne to Denver.  However, since MT has zero acess to a city even close to rivaling Denver at any point during the year this is really a moot point.  Even Billings (MT's largest city) which is only 1 1/2 or less drive from WY is within travel distance for parts of WY.  MT is clearly much more isolated from large cities and the jobs and entertainment that comes with them.  So, if someone wants isolation from large cities MT is right up there with ND, SD, and AK.  WY offers acess to large cities like VT, NH, ME, ID, and DE do.

For those afraid of traveling to cities outside of WY for jobs because of tax reasons there is no need to feal.  SD does not have an income tax.  CO and UT have low income tax rates.  COs sales tax rates are some of the lowest in the country.  MT's income tax is moderate (still nothing like ME) and since MT has no sales tax you could buy your goods while in MT to mostly offset the income tax.

And the reason that WY does not have the jobs and entertainment that MT has, on its own, is because WY has far less people.  This is a very good compromise for WY.  

Again, another good point for not having any cities over 100,000 people.  MTs largest cities are quickly becoming liberal and even green (party and socialist) in parts.  WY still has acess to Billings, Ft. Collins, Denver, Boulder, Rapid City, and Salt Lake City but does not have the problems associated with the big cities.  It is almost as if WY has the best of both worlds.

Varrin, remember that everyone does not fly, often.  If I want to see a show or game in Nashville, TN which is 4 hours from my home, I drive there.  Most people opperate like this.  And when it comes to traveling by plane for entertainment then a great deal of large cities become open for all of the 10 possible free states.  Flying from VT to NYC is no big deal, nor is flying from AK to CA, or SD to Chicago, or WY to Las Vegas or LA.  Air travel equalizes all of the states.

Conclusion:  It still seems like WY is the best compromise state for the FSP.  WY along with SD is the most centrally located of all of the Free states.  Not only does WY have lots of open spaces, Mts, rivers, lakes, plains, forests, and rocky land, but it also has small towns, a couple decent sized cities (which wil surely grow after we more there), and acess to a large amount of other cities of good size and acess to the largest city in the West that is close to any of the possible Western free states (Denver) for most of the year.  AK, SD, ND, ID, and MT are not near any city even close to Denver in size and entertainment.    So if you want to move out West and you want rural life all of the states are good but if you want large cities near by than WY is the best choice.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: varrin on December 05, 2002, 03:28:01 pm
Since WY is warmer...  That is what I was thinking of when I was considering weather.

Average Temp in a few MT cities:
Billings - 47.1
Bozeman - 43.0
Butte - 40.2
Great Falls - 44.8
Helena - 43.7
Kalispell - 43.0
Missoula - 44.3

Average Temp in a few WY cities:
Casper - 45.4
Cheyenne - 45.5
Cody - 45.7
Jackson - 38.4
Laramie - 40.7
Rock Springs - 42.8
Sheridan - 45.0

Range for MT: 40.2 - 47.1
Range for WY: 38.4 - 45.7

The largest city in either state is Billings which is also the warmest.  You can find warmer and cooler places in both states.  Rural areas have some degree of temperature variation.  However, in the cities, there's not much difference, except that Billings is a couple degrees *warmer* than the cities in Wyoming.  Jackson, on the other hand, is *colder* than the cities in Montana.  

Also, in *every* Wyoming city listed above, the average temp is below 35 degrees for 5 months out of the year, not 3.  In Billings, however, that's only the case for 3 months out of the year and in Missoula that's only the case for 4 months out of the year (March exceeds a 35 degree average).

I realize this thread isn't about the weather, but since somebody else brought it up, I guess it had to be dealt with ;-)

V-

P.S.  Boise???  Avg - 51, <35 avg months - 2

Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: mtPete on December 07, 2002, 03:12:37 am
I can tell you one thing right now, one of the quickest ways to make a bad impression on locals in rural western states is to be another one of them big city types who works out of state and seems to think that the only place where there is anything to do is in a big city. No offence but in our expirience (in MT) it is those types moving in state that are bringing liberal, big government, treehugging, anti-liberty political views.

If you want to have a real affect on local politics that means being part of the local communitee. And if you work and play out of state you have just removed two very important means of interacting with the communitee.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: varrin on December 08, 2002, 11:37:02 am
I hope you wern't referring to me with the comment about working and playing out of state.  I work out of state (in fact, out of country) because that's the nature of my business.  Doing so *inspires* me to find a place to create freedom, not the other way around.

V-

Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Zxcv on December 09, 2002, 03:16:16 am
Varrin, what you need to do is move to Wyoming, start your own little airline, and rather than providing body cavity searches to customers like most airlines these days, issue them firearms at the gate as Vin Suprynwicz suggests. :)

Quote
Would it be easier to get 7,000 to Wyoming or 20,000 + to Idaho or NH? Thoughts anyone?
A hell of a question. I think a lot of that turns on the job needs of Free Staters, and the spread of job opportunities in the candidate states (I like Wyoming, but I wonder if I can cut it as a cowboy  ;) ). So, a couple of questions occur to me, that might help answer the above question:

1) What percentage of Free Staters are retired? (no job needs)
2) Does anyone have a clue what the job needs for the rest of the Free Staters are? Is this info part of the database?
3) What sort of job opportunities are available in the candidate states?

I can't think how to get a handle on these questions, but I have a feeling they are more important than amenities or climate or airports and so forth. I agree with mtPete that working out of state and using Wyoming as a bedroom community is not a good way to impress people. At least those who run for office won't be able to get away with that sort of thing.

I know we can start businesses as well, but people who start businesses sure don't have time for political work! Probably the "friends" should be the people who start businesses and if needed hire the activists... does that make any sense? I'm just trying to figure out how we would fit in.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Mark on December 09, 2002, 11:02:26 am
I hope you wern't referring to me with the comment about working and playing out of state.  I work out of state (in fact, out of country) because that's the nature of my business.  Doing so *inspires* me to find a place to create freedom, not the other way around.

V-





I'm kinda sorry this has to be my first post. But I REALLY hope the Free State isn't chose by people pencilling in weekend vacations.



I'm a Yankee. Vermont had a sexy appeal - for 10 minutes. So did Delaware. 400 people per mile. What a COOL thing for the pavement pounders. Yeah, 20,000 pavement pounders. NOT.


Listen, Syracuse is 1 hour to the left. Albany, 1 hour to the right. If that means anything to you, then you don't know what it means to live in Utica. When I move, I move to stay. I hope they have nice trees.

I'm keeping an eye on Tim's reports. I might replace my sig with the following:

"North Dakota: nicer weather than Saskatchewan (and Manitoba)."


Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on June 20, 2003, 02:56:19 am
Since WY is warmer...  That is what I was thinking of when I was considering weather.

Average Temp in a few MT cities:
Billings - 47.1
Bozeman - 43.0
Butte - 40.2
Great Falls - 44.8
Helena - 43.7
Kalispell - 43.0
Missoula - 44.3

Average Temp in a few WY cities:
Casper - 45.4
Cheyenne - 45.5
Cody - 45.7
Jackson - 38.4
Laramie - 40.7
Rock Springs - 42.8
Sheridan - 45.0

Range for MT: 40.2 - 47.1
Range for WY: 38.4 - 45.7

The largest city in either state is Billings which is also the warmest.  You can find warmer and cooler places in both states.  Rural areas have some degree of temperature variation.  However, in the cities, there's not much difference, except that Billings is a couple degrees *warmer* than the cities in Wyoming.  Jackson, on the other hand, is *colder* than the cities in Montana.  

Also, in *every* Wyoming city listed above, the average temp is below 35 degrees for 5 months out of the year, not 3.  In Billings, however, that's only the case for 3 months out of the year and in Missoula that's only the case for 4 months out of the year (March exceeds a 35 degree average).

I realize this thread isn't about the weather, but since somebody else brought it up, I guess it had to be dealt with ;-)

V-

P.S.  Boise???  Avg - 51, <35 avg months - 2



If you look at the Climate Report #3 you will find that Wyoming has warmer winters than Montana.  It does not look at just 7 states and it does not combine summers and winters.  I agree that in many parts of MT the summers are very hot.  However, I do not consider this a good thing.  WY has warmer winters and cooler summers than MT.  That seems like a good thing to me.  Check out the report, it goes into great length on these issues.

Here are a few examples, all temps are offical government temps.

Average Jan. temps

Wyoming
Wheatland  WY  28.2  
Pine Bluffs  WY  26.8  
Cheyenne  WY  26.4  
Carpenter  WY  26.2  
Torrington  WY  25.1  

Montana
Billings  MT  23.7  
Missoula  MT  23.2  
Great Falls  MT  21.2  
Deer Lodge  MT  20.5  
Lewiston  MT  19.5  

http://www.freestateproject.org/climate3.htm

Which looks better?  I'll take 26F over 21, anyday.  Of course, there are more important things, like population and expense of elections and federal dependence.  Wyoming does far better than MT in all of these.  Even in activists need per state as the author of this thread says, Wyoming is best.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Chris_H on June 21, 2003, 09:59:46 pm
  This is my first post. I'm on the fence about joining, and there are some items I'd like to see addressed that I haven't seen yet.

  I've reviewed almost all of the state data on the website, as well as around the internet (state gov. pages, etc.). In fact, my wife and I just spent our vacation "touring" MT and ID. (We only had a week so we couldn't go through WY yet. I've been there, but she hasn't.)

  I do think New Hampshire is the only one worth considering, but it's projected to grow too big for the FSP within by 2011 as noted above, plus it’s surrounded by socialist minded states. However, we're not willing to move to the eastern states. We used to live in Jacksonville, FL, but my mother-in-law lives on the Pacific, which is too far of a distance (psychologically at least) for my wife to be from her mom.

  Maine and Idaho have the same issue with population as New Hampshire. Alaska looks good, but its' weather and the general unwillingness of folks to move there cause it to drop out of the running.

  Wyoming and Montana do seem to be the best for the FSP's success, but at this point I have to agree with people who favor Montana as the best possible compromise.

Weather
  Both WY & MT are similar weather-wise (I don't consider the 5 degree temp difference worth counting).

Economy
  I've seen a huge number of posts commenting on Wyoming's lack of jobs, and that's one of my biggest concerns. I found myself out of work for 6 months after 9/11. My wife and I drained our savings before I was able to find another job, and I'm not willing to go anywhere without first knowing exactly how I'll make a living.

  In regards to the lack of jobs/economic growth, I see arguments for working in Colorado all over the forums. That sounds counter-productive to me, like trying to establish residency in one state (WY), but actually living in another (CO). Like it has been mentioned, that’s not the best way to become endeared to the locals.

  Besides, while Wyoming has no income tax, the advantage would be cancelled out by working out of state. Perhaps not currently by working in SD, or hugely in CO and UT, how long would it be before SD, CO or UT politicians would start to notice changes in WY and start trying to shift the income tax burden to Wyomingites who work in CO, but can't vote? I'd bet that in either case they'd try fleecing people from WY faster than the economy in WY would start growing, and we'd probably see the sun explode before the income taxes in either state would be lowered or abolished to compete with WY.

  Finally, the real estate market is more expensive on average in WY than in MT. (At least according to www.realtor.com and www.homeseekers.com).

  Montana has better projected job growth, lower average real estate prices, and residents wouldn't be as dependent on another state for work or entertainment.

  I haven't seen anything on the FSP website mentioning the % of retiree members, or exactly what members job needs are. I have seen a post by Jason Sorens mentioning that there probably would/will be the need for some members to change careers. As for finding job opportunities in the candidate states, there are a number of internet career sites and most local newspapers post their classified ads (including the employment ads) online.

Population
  Wyoming does have the lowest population, and it's been argued that the lower the population of the target state, the better chance the FSP has of succeeding. (I think that's the idea that started this thread.)

  If Wyoming is chosen, the FSP might indeed have an advantage in numbers, but the entire project also might fail if members found themselves unable to make a living and ended up moving back to other states where they could get work. This may not be an issue, but I think it’s worth considering.

  MT does have a bigger population than WY, but even counting projected growth, the FSP would stay relevant in either state, and the economic outlook is much better in MT.

Federal Intervention
  From what I've read around the forum, this usually seems to be discounted if it's mentioned at all, but I think it's a valid concern. The federal government probably wouldn't go "Waco" on the FSP, but it would probably fight with the state over control of certain resources, like Alaska's oil.

  I've seen Yellowstone mentioned, and abdicating it to the feds, but would that create a precedent for the feds to claim that they should receive every land in the state that it controls? Again, maybe not an issue, but should probably be considered.

Overall
  WY looks good according to the data, but the problematic items are deal breakers, for both my wife and myself. The overall state economy is probably the biggest stumbling block for WY.

  We still both would like to go check out Wyoming, but it'll have to wait for a bit. By that time the state may be chosen though and I still think MT seems to be the best. I understand the numbers issue, but population can't be the only consideration.

  Any thoughts (corrections, insults, etc.)?

  Thanks...
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on August 11, 2003, 12:50:32 pm
With 20,000 activists considered not enough in a state with a population over 1.5 million, I decided to apply that thinking to the states we are choosing from. Based on 2001 census figures.

Idaho:
17,613 activists needed as of last year.

Maine:
17,155 activists

New Hampshire:
16,789

Montana:
12,059

Delaware:
10,615

South Dakota:
10,088

Alaska:
8,459

North Dakota:
8,459

Vermont:
8,174

Wyoming:
6,952

Note: Idaho and NH are both on pace to surpass the 1.5 million threshold. Idaho in 2007, NH in 2011. The current time frame FSP has set is by 2011. Does that effectively eliminate NH and Idaho? Maybe. I pose this question: Would it be easier to get 7,000 to Wyoming or 20,000 + to Idaho or NH? Thoughts anyone?


This is one of the simplest ways to look at the issues and yet, it makes total sense.  Unlike some of ZionCurtain's current posts, many of ZionCurtain's older posts are actually quite good.  He has a simple and straight forward was of looking at the issue.  He doesn't try to overstudy things (like I do from time to time).  Simple, logical, and reasoning, at least in the above post  :)

To answer ZionCurtain's original question.  I think everyone agrees that it easier to get 7,000 people to WY than 20,000 to ID or NH.  Heck, I think it is about as easy to get as many people in WY as in NH.  However, I'll talk more about that later.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on August 11, 2003, 01:00:31 pm
Here is another old cost of his.

"
State in-migration:
NH:          7,000+ a year based on last 8 years.
Wyoming: 567 total in a 2+ year period.

Advantage Wyoming, less statists to counteract.

Smallest districts:

State House
NH:          14,489
Wyoming: 8,317

State Senate
NH:          53,000
Wyoming: 16,500

US Senate and House
NH:          1,275,000
Wyoming:  499,000    

Advantage Wyoming

Cost of Living

Average Wage
NH:          $16.50
Wyoming: $14.70

Factor in Housing and other living costs. Wyoming worker actually makes $3-$8 per hour more.

Advantage: Wyoming

Proximity to rest of United States

Advantage: Wyoming

LP Major Party Status

Advantage: Wyoming

LP State, US Congress, or Governors

NH:          0
Wyoming: 0

Advantage: Draw

There are many other factors to consider. These just seem to be the most recent discussed.

If someone who was completely unbiased as to what state to choose, was asked to look over the mounds of data that has been provided in the last year or so, what way would they vote?

Wyoming

I will edit out this last part if he wants me to.

The founder of the FSP has set one goal in mind and that is to get 20,000 FSP members to a single state to make a difference. How does he rank these 2 states? Wyoming 2, NH 6.  NH is not even close to the top.
"
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Karl on August 11, 2003, 01:03:41 pm
This is one of the simplest ways to look at the issues and yet, it makes total sense.  Unlike some of ZionCurtain's current posts, many of ZionCurtain's older posts are actually quite good.  He has a simple and straight forward was of looking at the issue.  He doesn't try to overstudy things (like I do from time to time).  Simple, logical, and reasoning, at least in the above post  :)

To answer ZionCurtain's original question.  I think everyone agrees that it easier to get 7,000 people to WY than 20,000 to ID or NH.  Heck, I think it is about as easy to get as many people in WY as in NH.  However, I'll talk more about that later.

This is MYTH #3 in The Six Myths of the Perceived Lower Population Advantage (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2673):

Myth #3
In lower-population states, we'll be able to influence others more effectively.

Truth:  This myth is often expressed in terms of activist-to-voter ratios.  In Wyoming (213,000 voters), that ratio is 1:11.  In New Hampshire (567,000 voters), that ratio is 1:28.  So, as the theory goes, each person would in effect be “assigned” to sway at least 6 voters in Wyoming, or 14 in New Hampshire.

This theory is in error for two reasons.  First, it assumes that all other mitigating factors, such as electoral accessibility, are equal between states.  Second, it suggests that 6 people are easier to sway than 14.  If political activism were purely a door-to-door affair, this would be true.  Yet, most political influence occurs through mass campaigning:  letters-to-the-editor, newspaper articles, television and radio ads, flyers, political rallies, or simple party affiliation, or through network campaigning by voters talking with friends and family.  Indeed, political influence with the vast majority of voters is only rarely a direct face-to-face affair.

For evidence of this fact, simply ask yourself this question:  How many political candidates have you voted for that you have actually talked to prior to the election?
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: Kelton on August 11, 2003, 01:25:38 pm

To answer ZionCurtain's original question.  I think everyone agrees that it easier to get 7,000 people to WY than 20,000 to ID or NH.  Heck, I think it is about as easy to get as many people in WY as in NH.  However, I'll talk more about that later.
This is one factor I call the fundamental flaw in the design of the FSP plan, remember this statement:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 (http://www.freestateproject.org/strategies.htm) or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. . . .

--since we're stuck with this number, 20k, we not only have to consider which states are theoretically most viable, we also have to consider which states practically offer us the greatest chance of attracting 20,000 activists.
If we only get 7,000 activists = The FSP fails.
If we get 20,000 activists = The hope of the FSP goes on.
If we get 29,000 activists = even better.
If we get 20,000 activists in a larger state for the FSP and 7,000 in some smaller state in some future project = even better still!

Sorry, the argument that getting only 7,000 activists in a small state as sufficient is also contrary to the goals of this project, (as good of an idea as it is).
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: craft_6 on August 11, 2003, 01:25:50 pm
I think everyone agrees that it easier to get 7,000 people to WY than 20,000 to ID or NH.  

I don't think everyone agrees with that statement.  It might be easier to get 7,000 people to sign up to move to Wyoming, but it might be harder for all of them to follow through on their commitment, if they can't find jobs, or have to convince a reluctant spouse that changing careers and taking a substantial paycut will be worth the sacrifice.  

With ID or NH, people might not be faced with that decision.  (I say "might" in all of the above, because we don't really know.)

Looking at a simple ratio of activists required to available jobs, I think Delaware comes out as the clear leader in that category, although there are other reasons not to rank it first.

Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 11, 2003, 02:35:50 pm
I will edit out this last part if he wants me to.

The founder of the FSP has set one goal in mind and that is to get 20,000 FSP members to a single state to make a difference. How does he rank these 2 states? Wyoming 2, NH 6.  NH is not even close to the top.

FreedomRoad,

1)  You are "committing the fallacy of appeal to authority."   :)

2)  Have you even considered the fact that Jason has NOT updated his vote since May?  What if his vote has changed dramatically since then but he simply does not wish to influence the vote?

IMO, his old vote should not be referred to.  This will only force him to either reveal his true vote or demand that such references cease.  Either way, it may not be a very good idea to push for such an outcome.

Who knows what his true intentions are?  You might NOT want to find out.

Regardless, it does not sound like a good idea.  Disclosure would artificially, unpredictably skew the vote.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 11, 2003, 05:43:06 pm
Montana gets my first vote, mainly because I already own property north of Missoula.  But, my second choice is WY.  I intend to live near cody or thermopolis.  I have traveled the US quite a bit. I love NH, and it will be my third choice, but Wyoming is a beautiful state and with untold potential to be tapped by determined entrepenuars.  There has been no real developement with plenty of natural resources.  It is ripe.  Just my 2 cents.  The problem with Montana will be the labor Unions, they are pretty fierce.  On the other hand, the mountains are beautiful, the easter part is flat as hell, and there are plenty of alluring ranchers daughters for my son to date.  ;D
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: freedomroad on August 11, 2003, 11:23:22 pm
I will edit out this last part if he wants me to.

The founder of the FSP has set one goal in mind and that is to get 20,000 FSP members to a single state to make a difference. How does he rank these 2 states? Wyoming 2, NH 6.  NH is not even close to the top.

FreedomRoad,

1)  You are "committing the fallacy of appeal to authority."   :)

2)  Have you even considered the fact that Jason has NOT updated his vote since May?  What if his vote has changed dramatically since then but he simply does not wish to influence the vote?

IMO, his old vote should not be referred to.  This will only force him to either reveal his true vote or demand that such references cease.  Either way, it may not be a very good idea to push for such an outcome.

Who knows what his true intentions are?  You might NOT want to find out.

Regardless, it does not sound like a good idea.  Disclosure would artificially, unpredictably skew the vote.

Maybe you read that real quickly.  I did not write that stuff.  I was quoting someone else just like you were quoting me.  I am sure you just made a mistake so it is no big deal.  Otherwise, I could also say that you wrote that stuff, which is not true either.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: etphonehome on August 12, 2003, 01:20:48 am
I think that if you want to try to convince people that your favorite state is the best, you should only use your own opinions to support your argument. Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Sorens gets the exact same number of votes as the rest of us, so I don't see why his personal opinion should make more of an impact than your own, especially if the opinion you are quoting may no longer be current.
Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: weatherman on August 12, 2003, 01:49:01 am
I hope you wern't referring to me with the comment about working and playing out of state.  I work out of state (in fact, out of country) because that's the nature of my business.  Doing so *inspires* me to find a place to create freedom, not the other way around.

V-


Title: Re:Simple math:Activists per state
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 12, 2003, 11:25:02 am
Maybe you read that real quickly.  I did not write that stuff.  I was quoting someone else just like you were quoting me.  I am sure you just made a mistake so it is no big deal.  Otherwise, I could also say that you wrote that stuff, which is not true either.

1)  I realize you did not write that.  Sorry.   :-[

2)  You were quoting him and defending his post as "quite good," so my argument still applies, but you have no need to respond to it unless you wish to continue to defend the post.