Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Michelle]

Recently, I have read a fair amount of discussion regarding population. That we should simply choose the one of the ten states with the lowest population. I really don't believe it is this simple though, because doing so totally disregards a critically important variable: native support.

Is there any truly accurate way of measuring current "libertarian-ness = % of native support"? If there is, I haven't found it yet. However, I believe there are some really strong indicators, that while they don't give us an accurate percentage, clearly point at one of our ten states.

Besides the fact that claiming it is as simple as looking at voting population #s alone, clearly overlooks the fact that we have already narrowed it down to the ten states with a population level at which we believe we could succeed...

Consider state A:

Voting population of 250,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 15% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 37,500 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 57,500 or 23% support.

Now consider state B:

Voting population of 500,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 30% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 150,000 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 170,000 or 34% support.

Clearly, despite the higher voting population of state B, we have a greater chance of succeeding there because the native population already supports us.

I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.

Read on....

[Michelle]

First...the Republican sweep in the 2002 elections. The Democratic candidate for governor ran on an income tax platform. Record numbers of voters showed up at the polls on Tuesday to crush that idea. Well over 50% of NH voters clearly proved that we want small government, less costly government, and low taxes. THESE are the people that are likely to support the FSP. These are the voters that we want in the FSP state.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=15565

Bye, bye, broadbase:
Small government, low taxes for NH

MARK FERNALD deserves the thanks of all Granite Staters for turning his campaign for governor into a referendum on the income tax. The question of whether New Hampshire residents place a higher value on tax fairness as measured by the "progressivity" of the tax system or on small, tightly constrained government has been answered definitively. The people of New Hampshire unquestionably favor smaller, less costly government, and they are willing to accept the flaws of a property tax-based funding mechanism to get it.

In his concession speech Tuesday night, Fernald repeated his argument for replacing the property tax system with an income tax. He pounded home his points that the property tax is unfair and the income tax fair, and he vowed to keep fighting to convince New Hampshire voters of this point. His implication was that the voters of this state still don't understand; that they weren't listening and they need to be told again and again until they get it through their thick heads.

On the contrary, it is Fernald who does not understand New Hampshire, not the other way around. Fernald campaigned solely on the income tax. He made his case forcefully and clearly. There could be little widespread misunderstanding of the issue. Voters listened, understood and disagreed.

Those who would say that this election was more about Craig Benson and his millions of dollars in campaign ads are wrong. If Benson defeated Fernald only because he vastly outspent him, how does one explain the Republican gains in the Senate and House? Almost every Democrat running for Senate favored Fernald's income tax plan, and the Republicans trounced them, picking up five seats for a total of 18 out of 24, and they gained seats in the House. Unofficial results
show Fernald won only 20 towns and lost by a total of 89,928 votes (or 102,876 if you count the Libertarian votes as votes against an income tax).

The anti-income tax votes did not come only from native Granite Staters, either. Most towns bordering Massachusetts went for Benson, too. The income tax is so unpopular that a ballot measure to kill it in Massachusetts got nearly 50 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

In the light produced by the flaming wreckage that is all that is left of Fernald's campaign, it is tempting to say that the income tax issue is settled once and for all in New Hampshire. It isn't. If Gov. Benson and the Legislature do not send the voters a constitutional amendment and fix the education funding mess, pressure for an income tax or other broadbased tax will build again. Now is the time, gentlemen and ladies. Don't let it slip by.

[Michelle]

And here is another editorial from a few days before the election that further drives this point home:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=15401

Not the NH way:
Shaheen, Fernald don't represent NH ideas

NEW HAMPSHIRE people like to do things their own way. We don't care how things are done in Massachusetts or Maine, Vermont or Connecticut, New York or California. A lot of us moved here to get away from places like those. We came because we liked small government, low taxes and a rural way of life. That's one reason we pay more attention to our politicians than people in most other states pay to theirs. We don't want them turning our government into a carbon copy of everyone else's. We want ours to be unique, to protect the values and the way of life we cherish.

It is hard for most outsiders to understand this. They marvel at our extremely small, extremely local and extremely inexpensive government. And then they tell us we ought not have it that way; we ought to do things the way they do them back home.

That's more or less what the Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass., said on Tuesday when it endorsed Mark Fernald for governor and Jeanne Shaheen for Senate. The left-leaning Massachusetts paper wrote that we should vote for Fernald and his income tax to "bring New Hampshire's tax policy into the 21st century." Well, we like our 19th century tax structure just fine, thank you very much. It has its flaws, to be sure, but it accomplishes the one thing it is meant to
accomplish: it keeps us from turning into Massachusetts.

The Eagle-Tribune claimed we ought to elect Shaheen to the U.S. Senate because she is more independent from her party leadership than Sununu is from his. This is as false as can be. Moreover, it ignores the central issue: which candidate holds New Hampshire values? Certainly not pro-tax, pro-big government Shaheen, who spent six years trying to make our state government indistinguishable from those of other New England states.

New Hampshire voters, whether native or newcomer, must consider why they live here and whether they want New Hampshire politicians to carry the generic, big-government banner under which politicians from other New England states march, or whether they want New Hampshire to remain unique and independent. In the races for governor and Senate, Craig Benson and John Sununu are the candidates who hold true New Hampshire values about government and taxes and would put those values to work. Their opponents do not and would not.

[Michelle]

What are some other indicators?

From the FSP state data page:
How about low dependence on the federal government? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest total government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest state and local government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.

How about density of current LP members in each state. NH is #1 in the nation (Sept. 30, 2002 figures):

State / Rank against 50 / density

NH / #1 / 202.5
AK / #2 / 184.3
VT / #3 / 164.7
WY / #9 / 123.4
ME / #14 / 105.7
ID / #17 / 103
MT / #18 / 96.2
DE / #27 / 76.6
ND / #43 / 52
SD / #44 / 48.9

What about a history of rejecting laws restrictive of personal freedom just to get federal highway dollars? Again, NH comes out ahead:
Least restrictive helmet laws in the nation: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html
Least restrictive seatbelt laws in the nation: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm

How about some of the lowest taxes in the nation? NH comes out on top (SD looks good here too):

Taxes as a percentage of gross personal income:

#1 NH 4.54% - 1st in nation
#2 SD 5.05% - 2nd in nation
#3 MT 7.26% - 28th in nation
#4 WY 7.61% - 31st in nation
#5 ND 7.94% - 34th in nation
#6 AK 8.04% - 36th in nation
#7 ID 8.32% - 39th in nation
#8 ME 8.63% - 43rd in nation
#9 DE 9.19% - 47th in nation
#10 VT 9.57% - 48th in nation

State taxes per capita:

#1 SD $1226/person - 1st in nation
#2 NH $1372/person - 4th in nation
#3 MT $1564/person - 9th in nation
#4 ND $1826/person - 25th in nation
#5 ID $1837/person - 28th in nation
#6 WY $1952/person - 34th in nation
#7 ME $2087/person - 37th in nation
#8 AK $2270/person - 41st in nation
#9 VT $2416/person - 44th in nation
#10 DE $2721/person - 48th in nation

How about $s spent per citizen (state budget / state citizens). NH comes out on top:
This is a calculation that was done by Keith Murray and posted on the e-list, I'm posting the top 5.

New Hampshire
2985.95

South Dakota
3323.87

Idaho
3505.54

North Dakota
3920.90

Montana
4022.41

How about highest # of elected Libertarians? NH comes out on top:
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.html

NH - 26
VT - 18
ME - 7
ID - 3
DE - 2
SD - 1
WY - 1
AK - 1
MT - 0
ND - 0

So - these are the reasons that I am supporting New Hampshire as the #1 choice for the FSP. While I also believe that liveability factors will play a major role in our ultimate success (and I believe I made a very strong argument for why NH comes out on top when calculating these factors also in my NH report at http://www.freestateproject.com/newhampshire2.htm) I feel that these indicators of "current libertarian-ness = native support" are the most critical of them all.

I am 100% convinced that FSP will succeed in New Hampshire.

[Michelle]

Oops, I forgot another indicator.

How about proven friendliness of the press to libertarian ideals within the state? I think NH comes out tops here too:

WMUR/Channel 9 video mentioning FSP http://www.groupe.org/lpnh-conv

Front page NH Union Leader article on FSP http://www.unionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=14879

Recent show profiling LPNH candidates http://132.177.204.7:8080/ramgen/outlook/nho10212002.rm

Recent televised gubernatorial debate http://132.177.204.7:8080/ramgen/outlook/guberforum.rm

LP candidate also included in the WMUR debate -  this is not archived on the web, but you can read about it here http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/25/nh_gov1025a.asp

Extraordinary newspaper coverage of our 2002 LP candidate for governor: http://www.portfoliovault.com/babiarz/press.htm

[ZionCurtain]

Consider state A:

Voting population of 250,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 15% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 37,500 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 57,500 or 23% support.

Now consider state B:

Voting population of 500,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 30% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 150,000 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 170,000 or 34% support.

Based on your numbers state A gets 15% support and state B gets 30% support, how do you come at those numbers? If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?

[Michelle]

Based on your numbers state A gets 15% support and state B gets 30% support, how do you come at those numbers? If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?

I think if you re-read the first message, you will see that I explained this:

I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.

Code: [Select]

If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?
I think that the rest of the points I made clearly prove that NH is already doing something with it. Is it perfect? Of course not! If it was, there would be no need for the FSP. But just think how much more we could accomplish with 20,000 activists in an already libertarian-leaning state!

[Jacobus]

I find it disconcerting that Bob Smith, who was the most libertarian senator there was, was cast aside for Sununu, who is obviously much more liberal than Smith.  Honestly, I didn't see much of a difference between what Shaheen and Sununu said at one of the debates I saw on TV.  But Blevins (the LP candidate) did very well I thought.  I was disappointed that even with the press coverage the Libertarians received they only managed the same percent vote as Libertarians elsewhere in teh country.

[Michelle]

But Blevins (the LP candidate) did very well I thought. I was disappointed that even with the press coverage the Libertarians received they only managed the same percent vote as Libertarians elsewhere in teh country.  

Ken Blevens was excellent; he always is in a public forum like that. It was disappointing, but not particularly surprising. People turned out in droves to vote down the income tax. The GOP ran a very aggressive campaign that appears to have been quite effective at convincing voters that they needed to vote a straight GOP-ticket in order to ensure that an income tax wouldn't pass.

Actually, FWIW, the last time I checked, John Babiarz had done the third-best in the nation among all LP gubernatorial candidates. I know that still isn't much, but it's something. Based on our reception during the campaign (I worked on his campaign team), we expected much better, but I guess this just wasn't the right time. Now, if we had 20,000 more activists who could have helped provide support at debates, talk to friends and neighbors, make phone calls, contribute $ so we could have done some advertising, write letters to the editor, work the polls, etc., who knows what we could have done  

Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

[Jacobus]

Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  

[Penfist]

Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  

I've always been under the impression Ron Paul is the most Libertarian guy in the pit of hell known as Washington, D.C. Am I wrong?

[ZionCurtain]

(my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only)

Exactly my point you made up a number and stated it as if it was true. I used to play the what if game to. If you can say NH is 30% Libertarian then I can say man has been to the moon. It may appear that way but reality shows otherwise.

[freedomroad]

Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  

I've always been under the impression Ron Paul is the most Libertarian guy in the pit of hell known as Washington, D.C. Am I wrong?

You are correct.  Ron Paul is much more libertarian than anyone else (elected) in D.C.  However, Ron Paul is a Rep. and not a Sen.

[freedomroad]

I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.

WY has the 3 or 4th most 'powerful' LP of all 10 states.  WY was well less than 250,000 voters.

NH is  in New England, the liberal center of the country.  Liberals are moving to NH.  Yes, they, as we speak, are moving into NH.  MA has millions of liberals and the more the Boston area rounds out of land and the more expensive the houses get the more liberals will move to NH.

It is almost like this:
The liberals will move to NH (they already are).
A few years later the FSP will move there.
At the same time the liberals will continue to move to NH.
The 5 year move in of the FSP will end.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Some reforms will pass and a few more Freedom lovers will move to NH.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Reforms will stop passing.
Liberals will still move into NH, but freedom lovers will stop moving in.
The reforms will start to be repealed by the liberals.
Freedom lovers will start moving out West for more freedom and lover taxes.
Liberals will continue to move into NH.
Back to square one.

Just a few thoughts...

[Michelle]

Exactly my point you made up a number and stated it as if it was true

Ummmm....since I clearly stated that the numbers were made up just to illustrate a point, please tell me how that is "stating that they are true."

I gave a general example to illustrate why I felt the percentage of freedom-oriented people in a state is one of, if not the most important criteria we should be looking at. I was careful to be very clear that these were just examples not representing any particular states. That is why I labeled them "state A" and "state B."

I then went on to explain why I think it is reasonable to deduce that a high percentage of the NH population is inherently libertarian and likely to support FSP. I don't know of a precise way to measure this. If someone does, I hope they will share it.

You are welcome to disagree, but please don't insult my integrity.