Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Greg B. on June 28, 2003, 02:28:32 pm

Title: 288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Greg B. on June 28, 2003, 02:28:32 pm
In regard to what causes a state to be considered, the Free State Project FAQ page says: “Obviously population is the critical factor.”  Unfortunately, a lot of the discussion regarding which state should be chosen has shoved this “critical factor” to the side.

It’s no secret that the Free State Project is a very close two horse race between New Hampshire and Wyoming.  I’m pretty surprised it’s as close as it is.  When you compare the number of statists (Gore and Nader voters in the 2000 election), New Hampshire had 288,504 and Wyoming had 60, 481.  Assuming 20,000 porcupines move to either state no matter which is chosen, we will be outnumbered 14 to 1 in New Hampshire but only 3 to 1 in Wyoming.

There were even more voters for Ralph Nader (22,156) in the 2000 election in New Hampshire than the number of Free Staters (20,000) that will be moving there if the state is chosen.  If New Hampshire is chosen, I can imagine a newspaper article with the headline “Freedom lovers don’t do the math: Free State Project chooses a state where they are outnumbered by Nader voters.”

I initially thought Wyoming was a poor choice because of the lack of jobs.  But it’s been shown that 36,263 new jobs (per Jason’s post) are expected to be created in Wyoming alone between 2000 and 2010.  And the Fort Collins area, just a 40-45 minute door to door commute from Cheyenne, has a population of 260,000+ with 215,000 expected new jobs (many of them being at high tech companies) between 1997 and 2010.

When you combine the Wyoming population (low, fiscally conservative, and socially moderate) with the job opportunities in and close to Wyoming, the choice seems easy.  Obviously, something else is going on.

I find it interesting that the most vocal supporter of Wyoming, Keith (Freedom Road), lives in Tennessee (where I happen to live).  But, to my knowledge, most of the strongest New Hampshire supporters live in New Hampshire.

Consider this thought experiment.  Hypothetically speaking, let’s imagine that Keith and each of the strongest New Hampshire supporters where all born, raised, and spent their whole lives in Indianapolis, Indiana.  If that were the case, would Keith still believe that Wyoming is the best state?  I think he would.  On the other hand, if the strongest New Hampshire supporters had spent their whole lives in Indiana, would they still be arguing as passionately for New Hampshire?  I believe the answer is absolutely not.

My point is that some people, particularly when it comes to New Hampshire, seem to be supporting what is the best state for them and not what is the best state for the Free State Project.

If you believe in your heart that New Hampshire is the state that gives the FSP the best chance to succeed, then voting for New Hampshire is the right thing to do.  But I think a lot of New Hampshire supporters need to think long and hard about why they are supporting a state with 288,504 statists rather than one with 60,481 statists.

I feel that each person should choose a state because they feel it has the best chance of succeeding, not because you happen to live in or close to that state and would rather not move away from what has been home.

Just because a group of FSP members desperately wants New Hampshire to be chosen and does a great job of cheering on their state does not mean that it is the state that gives the FSP the best chance to succeed.  

It’s the difference between making a choice with your heart and making it with your head.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 28, 2003, 04:33:37 pm
Quote
But I think a lot of New Hampshire supporters need to think long and hard about why they are supporting a state with 288,504 statists rather than one with 60,481 statists.

Sorry Greg, but this is one of my pet peeves. I really dislike the assumption that "Democrats are statists and Republicans are libertarians who just don't know it yet". Why? Because I've known many R's and D's in my lifetime. I can't think of one Republican friend of mine who'd embrace more social freedoms. Most are of the "family fascist" types: that the entire purpose of gov't and its' citizens are to support the "family". However, a good many Democrats I know are somewhat receptive to libertarian ideas. Of course, they're in favor of social freedoms. And certainly for a more "humble" foreign policy. But I believe and increasing number of liberals are becoming disenchanted with bureaucracy. They see vast amounts of resources being spent on the poor and not much actually going to them. I think they'd be for a "compromise": something like a citizens' dividend from natural resources.

And many Greens would welcome the FSP (ask someone from NH!). They would most certainly be allies in keeping the Federal gov't out (they favor de-centralized gov't).

But the bigger point is: you can't just make a determination about how liberty-friendly a state is based on one Presidential election. National politics don't always reflect citizen's true preferences. There are many states (IN, for one; I think maybe lots of Midwestern and Southern states are like this) where one party may handily win presidential elections and the other Congressional and/or Gubernatorial races. I think the local populations' "inclination" towards liberty is the most important factor - even more than voting population. If you want to use politics as a measure of this, you're better off looking at state officials, their platforms, voting records, what happens when they don't deliver what they promise, et al. I've looked at that for both WY and NH (admittedly more for NH), and I think that NH is an excellent choice (and I don't live in NH)! Of course, not to say that WY isn't a great choice, too. As I've said before, the FSP only has a chance of succeeding in those two states, IMO.

Quote
I feel that each person should choose a state because they feel it has the best chance of succeeding, not because you happen to live in or close to that state and would rather not move away from what has been home.

Does this also apply to Westerners who refuse to consider any eastern state simply because of a percieved lack of "open spaces" and "big" cities? I think for every easterner who doesn't want to "move away", there's a westerner who feels the exact same way.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: RacecaR on June 28, 2003, 04:48:51 pm
Quote
It’s no secret that the Free State Project is a very close two horse race between New Hampshire and Wyoming.

You must be joking.  I don't think New Hampshire is even in the top 5 states.  The top two states are Wyoming and Montana from what I see.  
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 28, 2003, 04:56:57 pm
Quote
It?s no secret that the Free State Project is a very close two horse race between New Hampshire and Wyoming.

You must be joking.  I don't think New Hampshire is even in the top 5 states.  The top two states are Wyoming and Montana from what I see.  
I am beginning to agree with RacecaR. NH is just more vocal in their propoganda, while most sensible people can see through it and make an educated decision.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: mtPete on June 28, 2003, 04:58:14 pm
steven you're badly steriotyping republicans. I don't know how it is where you are but the GOP around MT arn't like that.

And as far as Greens go they are as much enemies of Liberty as any because of their war on private protery rights. Next to the feds they are the biggest threat to our freedom nationwide, and particularly out west.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Greg B. on June 28, 2003, 06:04:22 pm
Steven,

I agree that Democrats have more in common with libertarians on social issues (such as the legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.), but overall I think Republicans have more in common with us.  Higher taxes, gun control, unnecessary regulation, public (government) schools, entitlement programs, affirmative action, etc. are all promoted much more by Democrats.  So, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

In addition, I totally agree that it is just as wrong for a Westerner to have an anti-East Coast bias as vice versa (and that an equal percentage of people on both sides are guilty of being biased).  As far as my personal opinion is concerned, if New Hampshire had Wyoming’s demographics, I’d argue just as strongly for New Hampshire.

RaceCar,

If you think I’m joking, you should check out all the latest polls on this site.  I’m not saying I know for sure that they reflect what the whole group of FSP members thinks, but a lot of the people who voted in the poll had New Hampshire number one.

Greg
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 28, 2003, 06:09:25 pm
Quote
NH is just more vocal in their propoganda, while most sensible people can see through it and make an educated decision.

No offense, but these sorts of comments are making me question the FSP and its' chances at. It's all the crap along the line of "real freedom-lovers can't possibly vote for NH! Those money-grubbing fair-weather friends just want jobs and cities!" Case in point: the recent discussion of why NH supporters should vote for ID. Why are we told that they should choose ID 2nd? Because - of course - all those NH supporters are out for are jobs, weather, and cities!

Maybe a more appropriate response would be "most sensible people who rank the criteria and other factors precisely how I rank them would not choose NH". It's all a matter of how you rank the various factors!! For example, I've been examining which state has the best chance of success, given how I weigh the factors. I think that, maybe since I'm not in the FSP and have no plans of doing so, I can bring a different perspective to the table. For example, a rough draft of how I'd rank the factors for success would be:

1. "libertarian" culture (hard to quantify, comes from a multitude of sources)

2. how "receptive" the state is (newspaper articles, how warm and accepting the people are, will the FSP be viewed as a "takeover"?)

3. size of state gov't per capita

4. elections (is there "fusion"?, ballot machines, having experienced candidates helping out, access to the government, cost of elections, and income adjusted for cost-of-living)

5. population

Now, given this criteria - which I don't belive is wholly irrational - I've determined that NH has the best chance of success. If you have different rankings of factors, as long as it's reasonable (putting things like weather and borders high, I would consider unreasonable).

Just look at how NH supporters on this board tend to rank their states. More often than not, it's WY second, with ME and VT relatively low. Because I think most commited to finding the best state - regardless of whether or not it's in the east or if there's cities around! To me, they seem less partial than many who would rank all the western states first! The NH suporters I'm familiar with have indicated they'd move where the FSP decides, including the west. Would the vehement western supporters feel the same way? Greg, for all your railing against the bias of native NH supporters, I think the bias of some native westerners is just the same. There's the attitude that, "I'm not voting for any non-west state because freedom can't possibly exist anywhere than the west". To me, that's just as biased. Even worse, there may be those who criticise NH supporters for choosing NH because of the jobs and cities; but at the same time demand on a western state so they can have "plenty" of land and be away from cities. Seems hypocritical to me.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: RacecaR on June 28, 2003, 06:31:43 pm
Quote
If you think I’m joking, you should check out all the latest polls on this site.

I don't know where to find the polls.  But I'd be glad to look at them if you can give me a link.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Greg B. on June 28, 2003, 06:33:01 pm
Steven,

I have one more comment that I forgot to mention in my last post.  Let's say for argument's sake that we can recruit equally from both the Democrats and Republicans.  Since Wyoming had 213,000 voters in the 2000 election and New Hampshire had 567,000, wouldn't Wyoming still be the better choice since we would have many fewer people to convert?

In response to your last comment, as I said in my second post, I TOTALLY agree that it is wrong for any member to be biased against East, West, big city, small city, open space, closed space, etc.  We should all try our best to choose the state that gives us the best chance to succeed.

I've lived in cities as small as 5000 people in a rural Southern town and I've also lived in a studio apartment just north of downtown Chicago.  I think that you can be happy anywhere you're at as long as you've got the right attitude.  And I can't relate to people who say "I can't live in the Northeast" or "I can't live out West."

The good thing is that wherever we end up, we'll be around a bunch of libertarians!

But choosing the best state for success is the most important decision we face.  And, the way I see it, Wyoming gives us the best chance to succeed.  I respect anybody else's decision to disagree if they genuinely believe the FSP has a better chance of succeeding elsewhere.  Since you don't live anywhere close to New Hampshire and seem to be judging the state based on its merits, I totally respect your opinion.

Greg
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Greg B. on June 28, 2003, 06:37:13 pm
Hey RaceCar,

Here is the link to the latest poll:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2101

Like I said, I'm not sure how this represents the FSP as a whole, but it's the best information we've got.

Greg
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 28, 2003, 07:00:02 pm
In regard to what causes a state to be considered, the Free State Project FAQ page says: “Obviously population is the critical factor.”  Unfortunately, a lot of the discussion regarding which state should be chosen has shoved this “critical factor” to the side.

IF the electoral systems were all the same, it might be possible to compare the two. But since they're not, it's comparing apples and oranges. Most state rep races in NH only cost ~ $500 - In some CANDIDATE states, a state rep race costs $100,000 or more. You can run 200 candidates for state house in NH for that amount of money. In NH (and VT, but not most states), you can run fusion candidates - Lib/Reps or Lib/Dems or even Lib/Dem/Rep by getting just a couple dozen people to write you in during the primaries, so you pick up the straight ticket voters. In 2002, 57 state rep candidates ran as fusion candidates, and they ALL won. Multi-seat districts means your candidate only has to come in 5th, or 7th or whatever to win in many areas. One NH state rep in 2002 won with only 720 votes... One is 18 years old, and just graduated from high school.... A typical state rep candidate MIGHT have 6 volunteers... 20k activists in NH would give each of our candidates for state house 10x as many. Even 10k activists would dominate NH politics. The NH state house is much, much more accessable to the FSP than anywhere else, except perhaps VT.

Quote
When you compare the number of statists (Gore and Nader voters in the 2000 election),

Bush is NO friend of liberty. Most Republicans are statists as bad as most Democrats. Democrats will lock arms and jump off a cliff... The Republicans do it single file. The result is the same.
PLUS Gore didn't come close to winning NH, Bush came close to losing it. Bush I and II are very much disliked in NH... We consider them RINO's. How could a state where BUCHANAN won the R primary be filled with statists?  ::) Here's another reason we don't like Dubya.. When he was on the campaign trail in NH in 2000, he promised a group of people at a parade that he would buy ice cream for anyone who came out to do a photo-op with him. About 200 people came out for ice cream with Dubya, and when they got there, HE REFUSED TO BUY ICE CREAM FOR THE CHILDREN HE PROMISED IT TO. He only bought it for a couple kids who sat with him for pictures. It may be small, but it showed a lack of character and honesty.
When we were given the choice between a true, fiscally responsible person for Governor (Craig Benson) and a tax-loving Democrat (Marc Fernald) in 2002, Benson won 2:1.

Quote
New Hampshire had 288,504 and Wyoming had 60, 481.  Assuming 20,000 porcupines move to either state no matter which is chosen, we will be outnumbered 14 to 1 in New Hampshire but only 3 to 1 in Wyoming.

People and politics aren't that simple. Sorry. When the Reps are right, we work with them,... When the Dems are right we work with them. Sometimes, they are both wrong, and we work alone. The LPNH has had far more success than any other state LP party. When you want something done in politics, you have to play nice.

Quote
I find it interesting that the most vocal supporter of Wyoming, Keith (Freedom Road), lives in Tennessee (where I happen to live).  But, to my knowledge, most of the strongest New Hampshire supporters live in New Hampshire.

Your knowledge is wrong. Myself, Rich Tomasso, George Reich and Michelle Dumas are in NH.... Amanda Phillips is in Mass, Tony is in Connecticut, Keth Murphy in Baltimore, Dave Mincin in Pittsburg, Rick LaPoint is in Arizona, Bruce Morgan is in Texas, Jackie is in Seattle, and we also have many, many supporters from around the nation and Canada; even as far away as Vancouver.

Quote
if the strongest New Hampshire supporters had spent their whole lives in Indiana, would they still be arguing as passionately for New Hampshire?  I believe the answer is absolutely not.


See above. :D

Quote
My point is that some people, particularly when it comes to New Hampshire, seem to be supporting what is the best state for them and not what is the best state for the Free State Project.

There's a reason there are people from around the United States and Canada supporting New Hampshire.... For many of them, a western state would be MUCH easier to move to... Yet they recognize NH has many, many benefits that other states don't offer....

Quote
If you believe in your heart that New Hampshire is the state that gives the FSP the best chance to succeed, then voting for New Hampshire is the right thing to do.  But I think a lot of New Hampshire supporters need to think long and hard about why they are supporting a state with 288,504 statists rather than one with 60,481 statists.

Because a vote for Bush was NO better? :D At least spending all that time looking for his mythical WMD will keep him too busy to destroy the economy further...  ::)
Our Governor, Craig Benson (a REAL fiscal conservative who the FSP-NH is on a first name basis with) met with us yesterday, and asked us to "Come on up, we'd love to have you".  A VERY libertarian governor was elected 2:1 in New Hampshire just last year, and he is now very interested in signing on to the FSP as a friend...

Quote
I feel that each person should choose a state because they feel it has the best chance of succeeding, not because you happen to live in or close to that state and would rather not move away from what has been home.

As I've shown, we aren't. Are you?

Quote
Just because a group of FSP members desperately wants New Hampshire to be chosen and does a great job of cheering on their state does not mean that it is the state that gives the FSP the best chance to succeed.  

Nope. It doesn't. New Hampshire has 101 reasons to be chosen as the free state (http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf)
But there's still another BIG advantage to choosing NH - Our very large, very efficent, very effective media machine can stay plugged in where it is - It would take us a while to re-establish media contacts somewhere else like we have in New Hampshire.

Quote
It’s the difference between making a choice with your heart and making it with your head.

Don't worry. We'll forgive you if you don't see all the amazing advantages New Hampshire has; the heart can be hard to ignore. We're using our heads. :)

Most NH supporters, where ever they are from, have few to no opt outs. I'm committed enough to this project to have no opt-outs...  Are you?
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Matt Nellans on June 28, 2003, 07:22:49 pm
When I think of New Hampshire I think of its state motto, it has water access, first in primaries, but there are lots of people.  Wyoming has less people, but no water.  Frankly I doubt if 75% of Americans could pick out either state on a map but I know this discussion is important to us.  
Also while there are differences in the platform of the dems and reps I think they are basically the same party in substance.  
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 28, 2003, 07:56:08 pm
Greg,

My apologies. I was typing up my second response while you were posting, so I didn't get to read it until now. :-[

Quote
In addition, I totally agree that it is just as wrong for a Westerner to have an anti-East Coast bias as vice versa (and that an equal percentage of people on both sides are guilty of being biased).  As far as my personal opinion is concerned, if New Hampshire had Wyoming’s demographics, I’d argue just as strongly for New Hampshire.

OK, now we're talkin' sense! I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point. I think if you place a heavy weighting on population, WY is definately the best choice. But if you don't put such a heavy weight on it, I think NH can be the best. At least the dividing factor is something that is merely just opinion, and not based on something like weather or geography.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Greg B. on June 29, 2003, 04:48:43 pm
Jgmaynard,

I agree that Bush is no friend of liberty.  I happen to think that most Democrat and Republican politicians (an exception being Ron Paul) are more or less socialists.  The key question is whether it will be easier for us to convince people who vote for Republicans or people who vote for Democrats to join our cause.  I believe that people who typically vote Republican are going to be much easier to convince.

Also, even if you assume we will be able to recruit an equal amount of people from both parties, Wyoming is still the better choice.  The reason is that its population is much lower than New Hampshire’s and thus we don’t need to bring nearly as many people to our side.

By the way, I totally agree that New Hampshire has the strongest libertarian party.  And I admire the passion of the New Hampshire porcupines.  Frankly, I wish New Hampshire had Wyoming’s population so the choice would be easy.

I still stand by what I said about a lot of the New Hampshire supporters living in or close to New Hampshire.  Four out of the eleven people that you mentioned live in New Hampshire and two more live close to New Hampshire.  The group of people I have seen that support Wyoming do not live in or close to Wyoming at a percentage that high.

In addition, I acknowledge the fact that New Hampshire becomes more attractive when you consider their voting for Benson by a 2:1 margin.  It’s really puzzling that so many people would vote for Gore, though.  The two don’t seem to mix, but there must be some reason.

You asked if I’m supporting a state based on its merits rather than whether or not I live close to it.  Here’s some info about me and you can decide for yourself.  I live in Tennessee which is very far away from both Wyoming and New Hampshire.  And since I signed up for the FSP, I first supported New Hampshire, then Delaware, before finally deciding on Wyoming after reading Keith and Tim’s state reports.  So, I like to think I’ve had an open mind throughout the process.

What convinces me that Wyoming is the best choice is three things:

1.   Wyoming is #1 when it comes to the fewest number of voters with 213,000 in the 2000 election (New Hampshire is #10 with 567,000)
2.   Wyoming is #3 in citizen ideology towards small government principles (New Hampshire is #4)
3.   Wyoming has enough jobs to absorb 20,000 people (36,263 new jobs expected in Wyoming between 2000-2010 and 215,000+ new jobs, many with high tech companies, are estimated to be created in the Fort Collins area between 1997 and 2010).

Basically, I lean towards Wyoming because of its low population.  If there weren’t enough jobs in Wyoming, I’d go with New Hampshire.

Therefore, New Hampshire will likely get my #2 vote.  I may be wrong, but dealing with fewer people makes Wyoming #1.  I’d rather be in a situation where the number of people who can derail our efforts is limited.

However, if New Hampshire is chosen, I’ll be up there fighting right beside you.  And if Wyoming is chosen, I’ll support making New Hampshire the second Free State.  We’re going to make this work no matter where we go.

Greg
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZuG on June 29, 2003, 05:04:49 pm
Hey now, don't bash the greens too hard! I was a green before the FSP convinced me on economic issues.

Greens are a step in the right direction for the FSP, as it shows the populace is willing to consider dumping the republicrats that currently infest politics.

That said, I think NH is a really icky choice for the FSP. I love the culture and the people and the support we have there, but the population is already on the verge of being too big, and it stands to reason that the population is going to explode in the next 40 years as urban sprawl takes over. Then we'll be 20k in a state with 3 million people. What the hell are we going to do then?

I favor Wyoming, personally, but I think all of the states have considerable merits, save ID and NH (both too large and getting larger)
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 29, 2003, 09:47:51 pm
Quote
it stands to reason that the population is going to explode in the next 40 years as urban sprawl takes over

I actually think "urban sprawl" isn't really a problem for NH.

Big MSA's (like Boston) will not keep "sprawling" indefinately. When you say that you're concerned w/ sprawl, you are making the implicit assumption that the major MSA's will continue to grow in geographic area at nearly the same rate into the future. This just isn't the case. Many MSA's are already beginning to experience "implosion". People won't commute more than 1 hour to work, more or less. I'd say the chance for much more "sprawl" into NH would be at least as great as a population boom into WY from Ft. Collins.

The only state that concerns me with a rapidly growing population is Idaho. NH doesn't look to grow that much. If we can eliminate things like public education early on, we're probably less likely to attract statists anyway.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: robmayn on June 30, 2003, 11:27:48 am
Quote
It?s no secret that the Free State Project is a very close two horse race between New Hampshire and Wyoming.

You must be joking.  I don't think New Hampshire is even in the top 5 states.  The top two states are Wyoming and Montana from what I see.  
I am beginning to agree with RacecaR. NH is just more vocal in their propoganda, while most sensible people can see through it and make an educated decision.

It may come as a surprise to you, but some of us have done this "free state" analysis thing WAY before there even was a FSP.  Several LP'ers from here in Vermont have toyed with this notion for years.  (Influenced by the example of what the Progressives did here in Vermont)  New Hampshire has always been the choice of a few of us who have often dreamed of doing such a thing.  

I like the wide open spaces of the west, but am REALLY concerned about the large portion of land owned by the feds, the dependency on the feds and the many places in the consitutions of a number of western states that mandate state funded education and suservience to the federal government.  I have had these concerns LONG before the FSP even existed and greatly resent the notion that a preference for NH results solely from the PR blitz that the NH supporters are engaged in.  Although, I must commend them for all the effort that they are putting into it.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 11:36:47 am
Quote
It?s no secret that the Free State Project is a very close two horse race between New Hampshire and Wyoming.

You must be joking.  I don't think New Hampshire is even in the top 5 states.  The top two states are Wyoming and Montana from what I see.  
I am beginning to agree with RacecaR. NH is just more vocal in their propoganda, while most sensible people can see through it and make an educated decision.

It may come as a surprise to you, but some of us have done this "free state" analysis thing WAY before there even was a FSP.  Several LP'ers from here in Vermont have toyed with this notion for years.  (Influenced by the example of what the Progressives did here in Vermont)  New Hampshire has always been the choice of a few of us who have often dreamed of doing such a thing.  

I like the wide open spaces of the west, but am REALLY concerned about the large portion of land owned by the feds, the dependency on the feds and the many places in the consitutions of a number of western states that mandate state funded education and suservience to the federal government.  I have had these concerns LONG before the FSP even existed and greatly resent the notion that a preference for NH results solely from the PR blitz that the NH supporters are engaged in.  Although, I must commend them for all the effort that they are putting into it.
What conclusion do you come up with from the fact that as many or more than 10% of the NH FSPers have opted out of every state except NH? I see it as they want the benefits but not the struggles. They want to be saved but are not willing to do any rescuing. At least that is how I read it.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 30, 2003, 01:00:42 pm
...If we can eliminate things like public education early on, we're probably less likely to attract statists anyway.

This one clinched it for me for NH.  In Wyoming, you've got the hideous Article 7 of the Wyoming State Constitution. (http://soswy.state.wy.us/informat/const.pdf).  This establishes a broad mandate for free public schools:

Quote
97-7-001.  Legislature to provide for public schools.

The legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public instruction, embracing free elementary schools of every needed kind and grade, a university with such technical and professional departments as the public good may require and the means of the state allow, and such other institutions as may be necessary.

This is plain language to me.  Can we achieve true seperation of school and state and the associated tax savings without eliminating this mandate?  Can we convince 2/3 of the legistlature AND 50% of the popular vote in the state to ammend the Constitution as appropriate?  

Wyoming's constitution is broken, and may preclude serious education and tax reform (its 35% of the state budget (http://www.wyotax.org/02FiscalFacts/FY00WhitePies-Spending.PDF))  New Hampshire's constitution looks like Wyoming's constitution AFTER we've fixed it.  I don't think 20,000 people is enough to fix Wyoming's.  Sorry folks, but the population-at-large won't go for ending government mandates, even in Wyoming.  Remember, all the while we're trying to convince them to do so, our opponents are working equally hard to convince them otherwise.

I'm convinced that our only workable strategy in any state is to become the new political elite.  We can do that far easier in New Hampshire, with more abundant local electoral opportunities (for all of us inexperienced in politics) and a Constitution that works.

BTW, I strongly favor NH, but I'm not from there.  I live in DC now, but lived in VA before that and TX before that, and was born in NC.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 30, 2003, 03:04:33 pm
I think a  more accurate way to determine the better state thru voting records would be to count the votes that the Libertarian Party got in the last national election.
Wyoming: 43,944
New Hampshire:39,762
Not as large difference now, huh!
Lloyd
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 03:08:52 pm
I think a  more accurate way to determine the better state thru voting records would be to count the votes that the Libertarian Party got in the last national election.
Wyoming: 43,944
New Hampshire:39,762
Not as large difference now, huh!
Lloyd
Nice post, but the NH people will spin it for you in a second. What percentage of actual voters does that make for both states?
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 30, 2003, 03:20:56 pm
Yes Zion,
The difference in percentages of the electorate has to be taken into consideration, I agree. I was assuming the number of voters was closer than it is.  
Still, if one takes into consideration that the western states tend to be more libertarian than the eastern states, that small difference looks pretty good.
Lloyd
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 30, 2003, 03:21:15 pm
I think a  more accurate way to determine the better state thru voting records would be to count the votes that the Libertarian Party got in the last national election.
Wyoming: 43,944
New Hampshire:39,762
Not as large difference now, huh!
Lloyd
Wow! I don't remember this ever being brought-up before, this is a big one, but could you please provide a source for these data?

217
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 03:30:30 pm
I think a  more accurate way to determine the better state thru voting records would be to count the votes that the Libertarian Party got in the last national election.
Wyoming: 43,944
New Hampshire:39,762
Not as large difference now, huh!
Lloyd
Wow! I don't remember this ever being brought-up before, this is a big one, but could you please provide a source for these data?

217
Here is the link from of the LP website:

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=votesbystate
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 30, 2003, 03:31:36 pm

...Can any state beat these numbers?

Idaho Secretary of State Election Division
------------------------------------------
November 5, 2002 General Election Results (http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm)

Secretary of State
LIB Ronald E. Perry  86,437   22.5%
 
--
Of course, this was a two-way race against a Republican, (Democrats are on the endangered species list in Idaho anymore-- take that as a good thing or a bad thing).
 


226
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 03:37:16 pm
Definitely disproves NH as a LP friendly state, even Wyoming with less than half the population has more Libertarian votes. Idaho did a superb job also. Looks like a 2 horse race with Wyoming in the lead and Idaho hold a distant 2nd.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 03:42:17 pm
That's why we have more Libertarians in office than all the western states combined...  ::)

JM
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 03:46:31 pm
That's why we have more Libertarians in office than all the western states combined...  ::)

JM
But yet NH ranks lower than Wyoming in personal freedoms.  ::)

Now lets try something new it is called the FSP.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Dalamar49 on June 30, 2003, 03:48:08 pm
That's why we have more Libertarians in office than all the western states combined...  ::)

JM

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Oh yeah.... 8)
Title: Western Stigma
Post by: rdeacon on June 30, 2003, 04:13:36 pm
Sorry, Wyoming is good for smaller population only.  It faces huge problems, such as being landlocked.  Also, it faces the dreaded Western Stigma.  A movement such as the FSP is more likely to be deemed a militia radicalist movement if it occurs in Wyoming than if it occurs in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire is the most Libertarian state in the nation and yet it remains one of the most respected states in the nation.  There are other factors, such as its access to both the Canadian border, the Atlantic ocean, and direct border access with TWO OTHER candidate states.  If we want to think long term and think about expanding the plan after the takeover, we should look to a state with is connected by geography to other candidate states - New Hampshire IS that state.
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 05:10:23 pm
Sorry, Wyoming is good for smaller population only.  It faces huge problems, such as being landlocked.  Also, it faces the dreaded Western Stigma.  A movement such as the FSP is more likely to be deemed a militia radicalist movement if it occurs in Wyoming than if it occurs in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire is the most Libertarian state in the nation and yet it remains one of the most respected states in the nation.  There are other factors, such as its access to both the Canadian border, the Atlantic ocean, and direct border access with TWO OTHER candidate states.  If we want to think long term and think about expanding the plan after the takeover, we should look to a state with is connected by geography to other candidate states - New Hampshire IS that state.
We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 05:53:39 pm
I feel sorry for people who stigmitize people and regions by innuendo and prejudice..... It is very sad.

If a western state were chosen (or another eastern state) I would look forward to meeting it's people and experience a new lifestyle.

People and new places are wonderful. I love to travel to other cultures, and have even talked in Europe with Middle Easterners explaining to me why they "hate the American government".

But, that is why I have no opt-outs.

JM

Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Mickey on June 30, 2003, 09:38:32 pm
 New Hampshire may have the largest population, and Wyoming may have the smallest, but this does not matter. I think that a lot of people are under estimating the effect a small number of people can have. All great things are accomplished by a vary small group of determined people.

Many times, in reflecting on the possibilities of the FSP, I have considered what it could do in my home state of Indiana with its population 6,080,485 (WY is 499,000 and NH is 1,275,000).

I've looked for currnet LPIN membership totals and the most recent number I could find online was 627 in the year 2000 (in that year LPWY had 79 and LPNH had 363). From what I remember of the 2002 LPIN state convention, there were a little over 800 at that point.

In 2002, the LPIN ran for 159 offices (LPWY ran for 8 and LPNH ran for 18). Those 159 candidates included all four state wide offices up for election, all nine congressional districts, and about a third of the state representative districts. Most of our candidates ran minimal campaigns, but we still made a big splash. The media and voters took notice and we made a lot of new connections.

Now immagine if 20,000 libertarians had moved to Indiana before all that. Even if only half (10,000) joined the party, that would be an increase in membership of over 1200%! Theoretically, we could have ran 2067 candidates! That's over 33% more than the rest of the states combined ran in 2002!

Think of it! We could have ran for all congressional seats, all state wide seats, all 100 state representative seats, all 50 state senate seats, and hundreds of local offices including mayorships and county and city councils galore. We would have had over 12 times as many 'full time' candidates. There are 92 counties in Indiana. We could have ran for a majority of every county and city council in the state! Every voter would see 'L's all over their ballot.

What about the other 8,000 new party members? Every candidate could have had a campaign manager for all of their paper work (I had to handle my own when I ran for state rep). Every candidate could have had some one assigned to fund raising (I raised no money). Every candidate could have had a media relations person (the media often had to track me down for an interview). Every candidate could have had a speach writer (I had to come up with every thing I said on the spot and wasn't very impressive).

We could have won hundreds of elections easily and with little effort.

What of the other 10,000 libertarian migrants? There are numerous other ways to promote liberty than direct campaign activity. Every newspaper in the state could have been flooded with letters to the edditor. There could have been networks of home schoolers. Tax protests every month. A gun show in every county every month. Libertarian rock concerts and raves. Libertarian charities. The possibilities are endless!

It could have had a libertarian revolution in Indiana. We would have shaked the political establishment of the entire nation!!!


I used to think that Indiana was one of the more libertarian leaning states in the union. We have one of the best LP state parties in the country. But Indiana doesn't hold a candle to New Hampshire. NH has a culture many times more libertarian that IN. NH has one fourth the population. It could be four times as great in NH. Better than four times as great. You might rebut that it could be 12 time as great in WY. So what. Won't we hit a point of diminishing returns at some point? When we're running for every office in the land and every candidate has a full campain staff and there are still more activists to boot, what will three times more people accomplish?

Any of states under consideration will get us to the activist saturation point we need to break through the old parties' political machines. Even in the biggest candidate state we'll have all the people needed.

Let's have no more of this population debate. It's not that big of a deal.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: RacecaR on June 30, 2003, 09:59:57 pm
Quote
Let's have no more of this population debate. It's not that big of a deal.

It is most assuredly a big deal.  

From what I've been reading, New Hampshire isn't even in the top 5 states.  It's got less of a chance than Alaska in my book.  I'd be shocked if it came in 3rd place.  If I were a betting man, I'd lay 10-1 odds against New Hampshire being chosen as the free state.

Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Mickey on June 30, 2003, 10:11:21 pm
Consider this thought experiment.  Hypothetically speaking, let’s imagine that Keith and each of the strongest New Hampshire supporters where all born, raised, and spent their whole lives in Indianapolis, Indiana.  If that were the case, would Keith still believe that Wyoming is the best state?  I think he would.  On the other hand, if the strongest New Hampshire supporters had spent their whole lives in Indiana, would they still be arguing as passionately for New Hampshire?  I believe the answer is absolutely not.

By the way. In case you couldn't tell from my last post, I'm a Hoosier. ;) I grew up in Indiana and I am big time in support of New Hampshire. I've run for office twice so I can tell you that I firmly believe that our campains will be so much less work in NH. :)
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 30, 2003, 11:26:44 pm
Quote
All great things are accomplished by a vary small group of determined people.

Amen, Mickey! You've succinctly laid out what I have tried tirelessly to say!
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: RacecaR on July 01, 2003, 12:25:55 am
Quote
Here is the link to the latest poll

I don't see a poll there.  Just people talking about which state should be chosen.  A poll is like a vote.  You can set them up online easily.  Go to yahoo and make a group and you can create a poll there.  I already have in the california fsp group.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: BobW on July 01, 2003, 02:28:17 am
Hi Mickey,

Re # 32;

I've got to disagree that population doesn't matter.

Population determines the number of House of Rep seats.  The more House contests, the more adversaries.

My point here isn't to get into the NH-WY argument.

Population and derivitive, the Congressional reps, determine the amount of resources needed.  It's a common denominator issue among the various candidate states.

Let's review:

Montana:  1 Rep
Idaho:       2 Reps
Wyoming:  1 Rep
New Hamp 2 Reps
N.Dak:        1 Rep

Alaska is different.  The Rep is really a quasi  US Senator.

It's a basic rule that more resources will be available if  targeting only one adversary organization (and protecting against), than 2 different ones.

BobW
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 04:42:25 am
Sorry, Wyoming is good for smaller population only.  It faces huge problems, such as being landlocked.


There are 5 different threads about how this is a good thing, read 1,2 or all of them :)

Quote
Also, it faces the dreaded Western Stigma.  A movement such as the FSP is more likely to be deemed a militia radicalist movement if it occurs in Wyoming than if it occurs in New Hampshire.

I hardly think a bunch of city people from CA, TX, FL, NY, and a bunch of rural people from UT, CO, SD, MT, and ID moving to Wyoming would be deemed a militia movement.  Jason just rided a handgun for (I think) the first time in his life a few weeks ago.  How could 200 people in Evanston, and a completely different and independent 200 people in Torrington be connect as part of a militia?  This really does not make sense.  How will anyone he know if a person used to be in the FSP (after we move the project will go away and we will all leave it)?


Quote
 New Hampshire is the most Libertarian state in the nation and yet it remains one of the most respected states in the nation.

How does a state become respected?  What are you talking about?  I thought (in this order) that Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were the most libertarian states in the nation.

Quote
There are other factors, such as its access to both the Canadian border, the Atlantic ocean, and direct border access with TWO OTHER candidate states.  If we want to think long term and think about expanding the plan after the takeover,


What on earth are you talking about?  What takeover?  In NH they are talking about a LP caucus.  In Wyoming everything would appear natural.  It is just that all of the FSP memembers will be elected by the citizens of Wyoming and reduce government by 2/3s.  

Quote
we should look to a state with is connected by geography to other candidate states - New Hampshire IS that state.

It is one of those states.  NH is connected to 2 states.  MT 4 states.  Wyoming 3 states.  However, since WY, ID, SD, and MT are all somewhat free, they have lot of things in common and movements spread from one to the other.

NH is next to two socialist states that get worse every year, even though NH is pretty free.  Why would anything change if we moved their?  Do you not understand that the people of Vermont like socialism?

Quote
Title: Startegizing for a state
Post by: jgmaynard on July 01, 2003, 08:27:00 am
I hardly think a bunch of city people from CA, TX, FL, NY, and a bunch of rural people from UT, CO, SD, MT, and ID moving to Wyoming would be deemed a militia movement.

Maybe not so much in WY, but MT or ID would give them the opportunity to label us as such, although unfair.

Quote
How could 200 people in Evanston, and a completely different and independent 200 people in Torrington be connect as part of a militia?  This really does not make sense.

Who ever said the media made sense?

Quote
How will anyone he know if a person used to be in the FSP (after we move the project will go away and we will all leave it)?

I don't know about other states, but if NH is chosen, we already have a large voluntary database we are setting up.... Also contains community contacts so that when porcupines move here, there are people who are willing top introduce them in communities, and start them on the road to new friendships.

Quote
How does a state become respected?  What are you talking about?  I thought (in this order) that Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were the most libertarian states in the nation.

Based on what? Which quantifiable numbers are you basing that on (not saying it may not be true in some ways, just asking for specifics - No, I don't put much weight on RLC rankings, they're Republicans first and foremost. Party loyalty gets in the way for them)? The LPNH has more Libs elected than all the western states combined.... We are having meetings with other state LP's quite often, with them asking us how to do what we are doing.

Quote
What on earth are you talking about?  What takeover?  In NH they are talking about a LP caucus.  In Wyoming everything would appear natural.  It is just that all of the FSP memembers will be elected by the citizens of Wyoming and reduce government by 2/3s.  

Are you saying that we shouldn't or couldn't work within the LP framework in WY? An LP caucus is a MAJOR tool.... remember, we had one just about 10 years ago.

Quote
NH is next to two socialist states that get worse every year, even though NH is pretty free.  Why would anything change if we moved their?  Do you not understand that the people of Vermont like socialism?

Actually, the is a strong Lib undercurrent in VT (civil unions, best gun laws in the nation), but they have had their agenda hijacked by a few thousand well placed liberals... We can take it back. But one state at a time... Hit the statists where they are the weakest, and where we stand the best chance at getting 15,000 more people by Sept 2006 and can get the porcupines working, running businesses, and into office as easily as possible. New Hampshire is that state.
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: rdeacon on July 01, 2003, 09:45:02 am
Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 10:06:05 am
Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: RacecaR on July 01, 2003, 12:53:59 pm
Quote
We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).

Were I the governor of the free state I would tell the Feds if they tried to come into my state to prosecute people for marijuana, I'd call out the national guard against them.  And I wouldn't be sending any money to the fed from our state for the enforcement of drug laws.
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: rdeacon on July 01, 2003, 01:03:03 pm
The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  I agree that Wyoming is one of the best states to choose (on paper), but it carries a dangerous stereotype that will hurt the movement and make it an easier sell for the feds to shut us down, should the need arise.

Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on July 01, 2003, 01:14:30 pm
More importantly, I believe the "militia stigma" will hurt us trying to get 5,000 new members a year before our deadline of Sept 06. We are going to need to recruit tax activists, cannabis law reformers, gay and lesbian rights activists, etc. who may not be aware of the entire pro-liberty platform. They'll come around, but our recruiting efforts have to be inclusive of liberty activists now no matter what their subject of choice.

JM
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 01:20:00 pm
The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  I agree that Wyoming is one of the best states to choose (on paper), but it carries a dangerous stereotype that will hurt the movement and make it an easier sell for the feds to shut us down, should the need arise.

Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
You said 40% of the states have it let me know when you want to adjust that figure. Also there are only 2 states that even have a hint of that stigma and it is Idaho and Montana, not Wyoming. Of course from a viewpoint of someone back in say NY they are all the same right.
Title: Re:Startegizing for a state
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 01:26:17 pm

Based on what? Which quantifiable numbers are you basing that on (not saying it may not be true in some ways, just asking for specifics - No, I don't put much weight on RLC rankings, they're Republicans first and foremost. Party loyalty gets in the way for them)? The LPNH has more Libs elected than all the western states combined.... We are having meetings with other state LP's quite often, with them asking us how to do what we are doing.

Look at the number of LP votes each state got in 2002.  Look at the Number of voters Harry Browne got in 1996 and 2000.  Look at how WY and NH voted in the 1980 and 1964 Prez elections when freedom loving Republicans ran for Prez.  Look at all of the rankings by libertarian groups like VoteHemp, RLC, Gun Owners of America, etc.  Look at the ranking by anti-libertarian groups like Brady Cam., NEA, and ALA.  In all of theseways, and many more, WY is more libertarian than NH.  There are several state reports about this.  Another one is on its way.

Quote
Are you saying that we shouldn't or couldn't work within the LP framework in WY? An LP caucus is a MAJOR tool.... remember, we had one just about 10 years ago.


I never said that.  I am saying that in Wyoming we can run as Republicans and win all of the offices.  Also, some of us will want to run as LP and they will compete against those of us running as Republicans.  Wyoming is the only state I think this can happen in.  

The reasons are simple.  It has term limits.  Very inexpensive elections, the smallest districts, a strong LP, the smallest number of voters, and a very independent and libertarian minded group of voters.  


Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: craft_6 on July 01, 2003, 02:02:34 pm
The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  

The "western stigma" or "militia stigma" that might be associated with a western state is not even on my top 10 list of things to worry about.  The FSP will be stigmatized as a group of libertarian extremists regardless of which state is selected.  Legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, etc. will not be embraced with open arms anywhere.  In fact, the local opposition in a western state is more likely to focus negative attention on lifestyle factors than on guns, which many westerners are comfortable with.

Top 10 Things for the FSP to Worry About:
1. Will the FSP reach 20,000 members by September of 2006? [I think it will.]

2. How many members will actually follow through and decide to move? [I would guess 85-90%.]

3. How many who want to move will give up if they are initially unsuccessful in finding employment? [Depends on which state is selected.]

4. Will FSP members work against each other, with some joining the LP, some the GOP, some setting up a non-partisan league, and some starting a new third party, or will they work together for maximum impact? [Ever try to herd cats?]

5. Will local business and political leaders actively oppose the FSP? [Some will, some won't.]

6. If the FSP has some early successes in reducing government spending and taxes, will local residents become complacent and stop helping the FSP? [Yes.]

7. Will the Federal government actively oppose Free State moves to greater liberty? [Some of them.]

8. Will FSP membership become a litmus test question for political candidates in the Free State for the next 20 years? [I'm afraid so.]

9. Will local residents resent the FSP population influx, regardless of political persuasion? [Depends on which state is selected.]

10. Will animosity developed during the state selection decision hurt the FSP in the long run? [I doubt it.]
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 02:38:07 pm
The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  

The "western stigma" or "militia stigma" that might be associated with a western state is not even on my top 10 list of things to worry about.  The FSP will be stigmatized as a group of libertarian extremists regardless of which state is selected.  Legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, etc. will not be embraced with open arms anywhere.  In fact, the local opposition in a western state is more likely to focus negative attention on lifestyle factors than on guns, which many westerners are comfortable with.

Top 10 Things for the FSP to Worry About:
1. Will the FSP reach 20,000 members by September of 2006? [I think it will.]

2. How many members will actually follow through and decide to move? [I would guess 85-90%.]

3. How many who want to move will give up if they are initially unsuccessful in finding employment? [Depends on which state is selected.]

4. Will FSP members work against each other, with some joining the LP, some the GOP, some setting up a non-partisan league, and some starting a new third party, or will they work together for maximum impact? [Ever try to herd cats?]

5. Will local business and political leaders actively oppose the FSP? [Some will, some won't.]

6. If the FSP has some early successes in reducing government spending and taxes, will local residents become complacent and stop helping the FSP? [Yes.]

7. Will the Federal government actively oppose Free State moves to greater liberty? [Some of them.]

8. Will FSP membership become a litmus test question for political candidates in the Free State for the next 20 years? [I'm afraid so.]

9. Will local residents resent the FSP population influx, regardless of political persuasion? [Depends on which state is selected.]

10. Will animosity developed during the state selection decision hurt the FSP in the long run? [I doubt it.]

One thing to consider is that the FSP will cease to exist once the 20,000 is reached. I think we just need to stay active in voting and spreading the word. Vote the issues the way of liberty.
Title: Re:Western Stigma
Post by: rdeacon on July 02, 2003, 08:53:22 am
We can take a poll on whether or not Wyoming would be classified as a "western stigma" state, though the poll would probably end up split down the party line between NH and WY supporters.  And I stand by my estimate of 40%, or at least close to it.


The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  I agree that Wyoming is one of the best states to choose (on paper), but it carries a dangerous stereotype that will hurt the movement and make it an easier sell for the feds to shut us down, should the need arise.

Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
You said 40% of the states have it let me know when you want to adjust that figure. Also there are only 2 states that even have a hint of that stigma and it is Idaho and Montana, not Wyoming. Of course from a viewpoint of someone back in say NY they are all the same right.
Title: Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
Post by: Rich T. on July 02, 2003, 03:40:45 pm
Also, even if you assume we will be able to recruit an equal amount of people from both parties, Wyoming is still the better choice.  The reason is that its population is much lower than New Hampshire’s and thus we don’t need to bring nearly as many people to our side.

Once we go for a state-level race, perhaps. But that can't be an immediate goal of the FSP. The political physics just doesn't support it. Compare the size of the statehouse districts, which is where our first battles will be. That population number is what will determine our first wave of political success.

Quote
By the way, I totally agree that NH has the strongest libertarian party.  And I admire the passion of the New Hampshire porcupines.  Frankly, I wish New Hampshire had Wyoming’s population so the choice would be easy.

Perhaps it would. Though as even Tim Condon pointed out at Escape, each of the 10 candidate states have relatively tiny populations compared to the other 40. WY has 1 congressional district, NH has 2. Hardly a gaping chasm of a difference.

Quote
In addition, I acknowledge the fact that New Hampshire becomes more attractive when you consider their voting for Benson by a 2:1 margin.  It’s really puzzling that so many people would vote for Gore, though.  The two don’t seem to mix, but there must be some reason.

Simple, Gore had a campaign team here, helped by the incumbent governor Shaheen. Bush largely ignored the state, esp after losing the primary.  Also, given the amount of attention NH media pays to politics, Nader was always in the news. Folks who wanted another choice picked him b/c he was the alternative they heard the most about.

Quote
Therefore, New Hampshire will likely get my #2 vote.

Fair enough, and thanks for the consideration of the merits of the states.