Print

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

North Dakota

4 (8.3%)

South Dakota

5 (10.4%)

New Mexico

11 (22.9%)

West Virginia

5 (10.4%)

Maine

7 (14.6%)

Nevada

8 (16.7%)

Vermont

5 (10.4%)

Montana

3 (6.3%)

Total Members Voted: 44

[Eddie_Bradford]

Well what do you think guys?

[Elizabeth]

Why aren't all the states on the poll?  

[Mega Joule]

Why aren't all the states on the poll?  

Good question.  

Meg

[Dex Sinister]

Why aren't all the states on the poll?  

Probably because the make-a-poll page has only 8 slots.

Hey Charles - is there any way to do a "how many variables do you need poll," or is the default 8, and not changable?

Dex }:>=-  

[Eddie_Bradford]

Bump!

[varrin]

As much as I like Idaho, looking at the numbers, it doesn't look too viable.  I would rule out NH and ME for both population and weather reasons.  Montana looking better for population, is already more freedom oriented, and generally has better weather than a lot of the other places (certainly Alaska or Vermont).  

If I'm not mistaken, though, the cutoff for population is  1.5 mil, right?  20,000 activists should be able to impact towns, and probably the whole state in such a lowly populated state.  Here in California, just a few hundred real activists are stirring up dust from time to time.  We've even elected a few ;-)

This has been discussed elsewhere, but I think it would be important to consider the synergy of collecting such a large number of activists in one place.  I suspect not only the activists who come in will be inspired, but the locals who would now be activists if it wern't for the futility would likely jump on.  In a state like Montana, that could go a long way towards achieving our goal v.s. someplace like Vermont which is decidedly more socialist.

[ZionCurtain]

I would agree that we need to just eliminate those bottom 4 states in the least. Of course that is only if we are serious about doing this thing. It seems to me that people are chosing the state by where they would like to live rather than chance of success.

[Johnny Liberty]

I tend to agree. A lower population is going to mean lower media costs for advertising, etc. Also lower cost for entry into a variety of markets such as radio and television stations, cable, isp etc., housing, both rental and ownership. This will allow the limited resources of the free staters to go farthest (Unless you adopt my "Oprah for Governor" concept-then even NV becomes a very viable option).

Moreover, if things do become more prosperous (as a result of free market reforms turning the free state into a haven for gambling, hemp/hash production, secure "off-shore" style financial and banking charters and services, adult media production, sex tourism, etc.) the immigration of additional thousands of workers can be accomadated with less resentment.

The immigrants/migrants (at least the ones with US citizenship) will be inclined to vote "FSP" because their jobs will have been generated by the new industries and general prosperity. That's my theory anyway.

[PongGod]

While I understand the practicality of eliminating states based on higher population numbers, we shouldn't ignore the fact that two of the states mentioned, New Hampshire and Montana, are perhaps the two states with the most substantial liberty-friendly native population.  Therefore, considering a state's raw population is not nearly as meaningful as the difference between its libertarian-leaning population and its statist-leaning population, inasmuch as we can gauge it.  I think comparing Vermont and New Hampshire makes a good illustration of my point.  Vermont's population is only about half of its easterly neighbor, but would likely require a larger influx of libertarian-types to tip the scales than would New Hampshire.

Before we start discarding states from consideration based on population alone, I think we need to devise a more useful measure.

[Robert H.]

Unless the FSP can be assured of several hundred thousand liberty-minded voters already in the state (and if that was the case the state would already be liberated), isn't over one million people just too big a chunk for the Free State movement to bite off until it gets some experience in a smaller, more doable state? Even South Dakota or Delaware or Alaska at 800,000 could be beyond the ability of the activists that the FSP is apt to get.

Great data, Joe!  Even better than the info that we had previously available on population projections for 2025.  And looking at projections for 2015 is especially compelling when you consider the FSP's overall gameplan:

Allows five years to reach 20,000 signatures.
Allows an additional five years for those 20,000 to move.

The total allowable timeframe of the plan is thus 10 years, putting us 2011 before we would be at our target population within the free state itself.  The next major election cycle would occur in 2012, much too soon for us to have any real effect on the outcome.  The next major election after that, in which we could theoretically have an impact, would be in 2016, one year later than your census projections.

So, yes, it would appear that, given the FSP's allotted timetable, this data could be extremely important for our consideration.  At the rate we're growing, we could possibly exceed this timetable by a couple of years, but ten years is still a realistic time period for 20,000 people to settle their present affairs, move to a new location, find employment, etc.

[craft_6]

Allows five years to reach 20,000 signatures.
Allows an additional five years for those 20,000 to move.

The total allowable timeframe of the plan is thus 10 years, putting us 2011 before we would be at our target population within the free state itself.  The next major election cycle would occur in 2012, much too soon for us to have any real effect on the outcome.  The next major election after that, in which we could theoretically have an impact, would be in 2016, one year later than your census projections.

Don't forget mid-term elections!  If the FSP "arrives" in 2011, the 2014 elections might be an unmatched opportunity for advancing the cause of liberty, since turnout in mid-term elections is notoriously low.  20,000 liberty activists could have a much bigger impact when turnout is 40% than when it is 60%.  The FSP's likely opponents might also be caught by surprise, and slower to respond with massive media spending.

I'm an optimist, but the timetable could also turn out like this:

2003:  FSP reaches 5,000 and selects the state.
2006:  FSP reaches 20,000 members.
2009:  FSP completes move to selected state.
2010:  First mid-term election after move.

I don't think one year after the move is too soon to start having an impact, since some FSP members will start moving as soon as the state is selected, and most will move within a year of reaching 20,000.

[Kelton]

Here in California, just a few hundred real activists are stirring up dust from time to time.  We've even elected a few ;-)

This has been discussed elsewhere, but I think it would be important to consider the synergy of collecting such a large number of activists in one place.  I suspect not only the activists who come in will be inspired, but the locals who would now be activists if it wern't for the futility would likely jump on.

Very good point, Varrin.  I have witnessed what even just a dozen articulate and energetic liberty activists have been able to do at various times here in Fresno, California.  The few hundred that move to the chosen state in the upcoming months are going to make a noticeable difference, if they are truly activists.  And 20,000 real activists are going to be an incredible force to reckon with in whichever state we have chosen.

There, now I've got my last words in on this board.