Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 288,504 reasons not to vote for NH  (Read 13576 times)

StevenN

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2003, 09:48:23 pm by StevenN »
Logged
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -- Jebediah Springfield

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #16 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.
Logged

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #17 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.
Logged

Karl

  • Guest
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #18 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..  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)  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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2003, 01:02:28 pm by Karl Beisel »
Logged

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #19 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
Logged

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #20 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?
Logged

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #21 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
Logged

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #22 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
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #23 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
Logged

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #24 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

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
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2003, 03:42:17 pm »

That's why we have more Libertarians in office than all the western states combined...  ::)

JM
Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #27 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.
Logged

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #28 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)
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Western Stigma
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up