Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island  (Read 4008 times)

Matthew

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island
« on: August 03, 2002, 09:35:37 pm »

I was wondering why these states were eliminated today.  I understand there is low interest in these states, but what puts them below the rest?  Also, should we be expecting anymore eliminations in the future, near or far?
Logged
"And if Donald Trump delivered the mail, you could send letters for 12 cents, and also gamble with the stamps." Howard Stern

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2002, 09:46:12 pm »

Just FYI, Jason explained this in the Announcements forum.
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2002, 09:49:18 pm »


Well, there doesn't seem to be any constituency in favor of any of those states, and on the state comparisons spreadsheet they all end up near the bottom or at best in the middle (never near the top).  So we decided to eliminate them.  I was actually in favor of eliminating some others, but we couldn't reach a consensus on Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Maine.  We'll do reports on all 13 states remaining and then eliminate some more.  Those 4 should probably go since they always end up at the bottom of the spreadsheet, no matter how you weight the variables, and New Mexico and Nevada either are or will soon be over 2 million population.  In principle we agreed to the idea of having 3 Western and 3 Eastern states on the ballot.  That's subject to revision, of course, but it would make the vote nice and simple, and also help prospective members in their decisions.  Also it would probably make Cumulative Count work better by creating uncertainty about a frontrunner.  But exactly which states to include is up for discussion right now.  My suggestion was Alaska, Montana, and Idaho for the West; New Hampshire, Vermont, and Delaware for the East.  The East is an easier decision than the West, though.  There is a constituency in favor of Wyoming, but I think if they realized that going to Wyoming could mean mass starvation they might change their minds. ;)  Another idea would be to include a midwestern state, one of the Dakotas.
Logged

The Jackalope

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Official tattooist of the Free State
    • The Ink Lab
Re:Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2002, 12:46:35 am »

 As my first post, I just wanted to chime in about Hawaii...

I lived there for 6 years. Although it is absolutely gorgeous, I have to say that it was the most corrupt, welfare-ridden, "don't rock the boat" place I have ever been, and I moved there from California (!). Personally, noticing that Hawaii had been safely eliminated from the list was actually a plus to join the FSP.

Nice place to visit though...and the food is outstanding.
Logged
Forget who John Galt is...where's Win Bear?

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Nebraska, Hawaii, and Rhode Island
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2002, 03:48:51 am »

Quote
Quote from: The Jackalope

As my first post, I just wanted to chime in about Hawaii...

I lived there for 6 years. Although it is absolutely gorgeous, I have to say that it was the most corrupt, welfare-ridden, "don't rock the boat" place I have ever been, and I moved there from California (!). Personally, noticing that Hawaii had been safely eliminated from the list was actually a plus to join the FSP.


I live in CA and it is hard to imagine anyplace more contrary to the ideas of freedom, but I too am glad Hawaii is out of the running.  Heck they would never let me in with all my guns anyway. ;)

Meg
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)
Pages: [1]   Go Up