Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Simple math:Activists per state  (Read 11757 times)

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Simple math:Activists per state
« on: December 01, 2002, 12:46:32 pm »

With 20,000 activists considered not enough in a state with a population over 1.5 million, I decided to apply that thinking to the states we are choosing from. Based on 2001 census figures.

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

Maine:
17,155 activists

New Hampshire:
16,789

Montana:
12,059

Delaware:
10,615

South Dakota:
10,088

Alaska:
8,459

North Dakota:
8,459

Vermont:
8,174

Wyoming:
6,952

Note: Idaho and NH are both on pace to surpass the 1.5 million threshold. Idaho in 2007, NH in 2011. The current time frame FSP has set is by 2011. Does that effectively eliminate NH and Idaho? Maybe. I pose this question: Would it be easier to get 7,000 to Wyoming or 20,000 + to Idaho or NH? Thoughts anyone?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2002, 12:47:16 pm by ZionCurtain »
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2002, 02:16:43 am »

How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)
Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2002, 03:05:25 am »

How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

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

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2002, 04:19:56 am »

How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

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

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

Would you rather go to Denver and Salt Lake City for the weekend or Great Falls, MT?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2003, 02:34:33 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2002, 04:26:20 am »

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

I agree that Wyoming is better than Montana.  In fact, I see Wyoming as the best state out of all ten candidates.  All of your points in regard to it are accurate, it just seems like Wyoming is one of the more polarizing states right now, so I don't know that it would work as a compromise state.  By referring to Montana, I was thinking more in terms of "what if Wyoming just won't happen for one reason or another?"

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2002, 11:03:21 am »

How bout 12,000 to MT and we call it even??? ;-)

Montana could easily be my compromise state. If we decide to go that way.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2002, 05:45:05 pm »

The above assertions are either not accurate or counting on out-of-state factors.  Wyoming is much snowier than Montana on average.  It's not *much* warmer.  In fact, there are significant parts of WY that are cooler than parts of MT.  On the whole, the weather in WY is worse, not better than MT.

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

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2002, 01:45:04 am »

One thing against working out of state if we pick Wyoming is that we would still have to pay income taxes in that state.
Logged

glen

  • Guest
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2002, 02:05:15 am »

I think Montana would be a good compromise state too. But without a more or less organized collection of facts and fact based arguments, it is all just opinion and guess work.

I hope that someone will ‘adopt’ Montana and start gathering this information together. I will be glad to help where I can.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2002, 07:00:20 am »

The above assertions are either not accurate or counting on out-of-state factors.  Wyoming is much snowier than Montana on average.  It's not *much* warmer.  In fact, there are significant parts of WY that are cooler than parts of MT.  On the whole, the weather in WY is worse, not better than MT.

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

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

V-

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:  It still seems like WY is the best compromise state for the FSP.  WY along with SD is the most centrally located of all of the Free states.  Not only does WY have lots of open spaces, Mts, rivers, lakes, plains, forests, and rocky land, but it also has small towns, a couple decent sized cities (which wil surely grow after we more there), and acess to a large amount of other cities of good size and acess to the largest city in the West that is close to any of the possible Western free states (Denver) for most of the year.  AK, SD, ND, ID, and MT are not near any city even close to Denver in size and entertainment.    So if you want to move out West and you want rural life all of the states are good but if you want large cities near by than WY is the best choice.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2003, 02:43:30 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2002, 03:28:01 pm »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V-

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

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

mtPete

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2002, 03:12:37 am »

I can tell you one thing right now, one of the quickest ways to make a bad impression on locals in rural western states is to be another one of them big city types who works out of state and seems to think that the only place where there is anything to do is in a big city. No offence but in our expirience (in MT) it is those types moving in state that are bringing liberal, big government, treehugging, anti-liberty political views.

If you want to have a real affect on local politics that means being part of the local communitee. And if you work and play out of state you have just removed two very important means of interacting with the communitee.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2002, 11:37:02 am »

I hope you wern't referring to me with the comment about working and playing out of state.  I work out of state (in fact, out of country) because that's the nature of my business.  Doing so *inspires* me to find a place to create freedom, not the other way around.

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2002, 03:16:16 am »

Varrin, what you need to do is move to Wyoming, start your own little airline, and rather than providing body cavity searches to customers like most airlines these days, issue them firearms at the gate as Vin Suprynwicz suggests. :)

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

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

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

I know we can start businesses as well, but people who start businesses sure don't have time for political work! Probably the "friends" should be the people who start businesses and if needed hire the activists... does that make any sense? I'm just trying to figure out how we would fit in.
Logged

Mark

  • Guest
Re:Simple math:Activists per state
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2002, 11:02:26 am »

I hope you wern't referring to me with the comment about working and playing out of state.  I work out of state (in fact, out of country) because that's the nature of my business.  Doing so *inspires* me to find a place to create freedom, not the other way around.

V-





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



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


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

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

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


« Last Edit: December 09, 2002, 11:07:14 am by Mark »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

anything