Alright folks what I have to say might seem a bit out there but I have to say it. So feel free to bash afterwards. From what I've noticed the past couple of weeks is this push for the top 3 states- NH, WY, and to some extent ID. Not a word about DE has arisen. Maine and VT don't seem to have a big following either. The Dakotas don't have any fans. Some stuff has been said about MT but its playing the roll as spoiler. AK is just not gonna ever happen (maybe a great state for the project but you'll never get the people there.) .
I do not know about all of that. However, there is a state report that compares just ID, NH, and WY. It is around 25 pages long and here,
http://www.freestateproject.org/StateComparisons_25mar03.htmHere is the opener,
"With the Free State Project (FSP) closing in on the 5,000-member mark, the time for the state vote is close at hand. After rigorous research and debate, a few states have slowly migrated their way to the top of our list of candidates, and it is time that we took a good, hard look at these states to see which might make the best candidate for a future free state: Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming (in no particular order).
Many feel that all three of these states possess various virtues that rank them as the most liberty-friendly states in the country, but the question remains: which is best for liberty along the lines of what the FSP has in mind? "
Here is the closer,
"
Wyoming – the Best State for Liberty?All of these elements working together, and combined with the fact that Wyoming allows the FSP a chance at the maximum possible saturation of activists to residents, places Wyoming head-and-shoulders above the other nine candidate states. Nowhere else do we have this number of benefits and liberty-friendly elements along with so low of a burden for each FSP activist.
Nowhere else could we have so great an impact so very quickly – simply by being there and voting. And nowhere else will our natural opposition be as weak (the NEA, and other unions and special interests – both in sheer numbers and political machinery). Wyoming is also located farther away from the statist media and political elements (including special interest groups) that could damage us so badly if we were located closer to statist enclaves like Boston and New York.
Again, consider the notion that the FSP could fall short of 20,000 participants; or even if it gets all 20,000 that they might not be as activist as necessary for one of the larger states. Even 20,000 libertarians who confined their activism to voting could make an impact of some sort in any of these states, or gather together and hold influence over a few towns or counties, but could they achieve a free state? And when you consider that 8,000 to 10,000 in Wyoming could accomplish as much if not more than 20,000 in Idaho or New Hampshire, consider what 20,000 in Wyoming could do!
As has been pointed out in our discussions already, a few libertarians forming a township or gaining a majority influence in a county might be able to enact a number of reforms; however, the extent of what they could accomplish could be severely curtailed by the state government. States simply have much more political power than town and county governments. They also have representation in the United States Congress. Thus, if it is at all possible, we should try our best to go somewhere that would allow us a greater voice in the state government.
Wyoming presents us with a very real chance at achieving a majority representation in a state legislature and thus a very real chance at "liberty in our lifetime." Overall, it makes us less reliant upon the various unknown elements that we face in other states such as: "will we have enough?" or "will they really move?" or "will they do the work that's necessary to succeed?" Any of these elements could be fatal to our efforts in the higher population states. In Wyoming, they hurt us the least because our numbers count for so much more even before anything else is considered."
