Within-state concentration is going to be done informally, but it remains something we want to encourage. After the state is chosen, the main task of the Research Committee will be to research localities within the state on the basis of desirability of living there and political potential.
I've already done some research on this, for the purpose of evaluating the states - it turns out that some states' geographies are better suited to "smart migration" than others'. So I've undertaken a preliminary identification of the most desirable locales in each state, following these principles:
1) We need to have people near the capital city, for testifying before the legislature, protesting in front of the capitol building, and all that fun stuff.
2) We need people in or near the largest city, for jobs.
3) We need people in the towns with the largest universities, to activate the student vote and influence the next generation.
4) We need rural counties for our wilderness lovers, preferably in "corridors" connecting our other areas of strength.
5) We need to avoid the most statist areas.
6) We should avoid reservation-dominated counties, as we should let Native Americans be the majority in the areas under their sovereignty.
7) Put together, it's best if the population of "smart migration" areas is only just over half the population of the state.
DELAWARE
Delaware has only three counties, and the largest (New Castle) has about two-thirds of the state's population. If Delaware were chosen, we'd definitely want Kent and Sussex counties (capital city and rural, respectively). But that gives us only one-third of the population. Then we need people in New Castle County. This is where the difficulty comes in, because smart migration is difficult to arrange. If we tell people, "Live anywhere in Delaware except within the city limits of Wilmington" - the statist hellhole - then we haven't accomplished smart migration, b/c Wilmington accounts for only 72,000 people, 1/10th of Delaware's population. So Delaware is possibly the worst candidate state when it comes to arranging smart migration: it would be very difficult to arrange.
IDAHO
It's clear we want people in Boundary and Bonner counties, where libertarian activism is already strong. Kootenai County has already been Californicated to some extent, as it contains Coeur d'Alene, but there is also a strong libertarian element there, so I think we should go for it. Shoshone County is a good wilderness county and links us with Latah County, where the U of Idaho is located. Nez Perce is a good county, with Lewiston, but Lewis County, with the reservation, should be avoided. Clearwater and Idaho Counties should be taken, because they link north with south, and border Montana, a state we'd hope to influence. Valley and Boise Counties would link with Ada County, which contains the state capital of Boise; we need all of those. Now we've already got a majority of Idaho in counties we're moving to, but we also want a couple more rural counties bordering Montana and Wyoming: I advocate including Lemhi, Clark, Fremont, and Caribou counties in the mix. Pocatello and Idaho Falls should be completely avoided. Because Idaho is dominated by Boise, we'll need a lot of people there, and that reduces somewhat the "smart migration" potential for this state. I'd say that Idaho is about average.
MAINE
We likely want to include the northern fringe of wilderness counties in our migration: Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, and Oxford. We also want York County, which is commutable to NH and MA and should also be influenced by NH's low taxes. We want Cumberland because it has Portland, the largest city, Kennebec because it has Augusta, the capital, and Penobscot because it has the U of Maine. When you put all that together, there's very little of Maine where we won't be: mostly the northern coastal counties. Maine's smart migration potential is below average but better than Delaware's.
MONTANA
We want some counties bordering Canada and Idaho: Lincoln, Sanders, Flathead, and Toole look particularly desirable. Glacier and Lake should be avoided because of the reservations. Most of eastern Montana should be left because there are few jobs, it is bitterly cold, and it is depopulating. We need Missoula because the U of MT is there, Lewis and Clark because Helena is there, Gallatin because Bozeman is there (MT State), and Yellowstone because Billings (largest city) is there. We should avoid statist Butte. Ravalli is most desirable in terms of climate, so we can include that there. Petroleum County has only 800 people, so if some people want to join with Larry (Zack Bass) in "taking over a county," then that would be the best place for them. Great Falls is another city left out; it's not very statist, but the climate there is pretty harsh, so it might not attract many Free Staters anyway. Overall, MT has some good potential for smart migration, although winning over Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, and Billings is going to be tough.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NH has pretty big counties. Clearly we want Hillsborough for jobs, Merrimack for the capital of Concord, Grafton for Dartmouth and because it is the current hotspot for libertarian activism, and Coos for wilderness lovers. That totals up to about 40% of the population, with Rockingham, Sullivan, Cheshire, Belknap, Carroll, and Strafford being the omitted counties. We need to avoid Rockingham to avoid putting the proportion of targeted counties up to 70% and ruining the "smart-ness" of the migration. Targeting Strafford instead will put NH just about 50%. Telling people to avoid Rockingham will be difficult because it's a very commutable county and is the only one to border the ocean. If we included Rockingham in the migration, NH would be about as bad as ME. If we omit it, there's a significant tradeoff. For this reason, I think NH is roughly even with ID - both require tough choices to ensure smart migration.
NORTH DAKOTA
Because of its small counties, ensuring smart migration in ND is not terribly difficult. I'd say we'd want to avoid the coldest, northern parts of the state and concentrate ourselves along the borders with Montana and South Dakota. We also need Burleigh for the capital and Cass for the largest city (Fargo). I'd recommend basically targeting the whole southern half of the state and trying to avoid Grand Forks and Minot. The hardest thing about that is the jobs factor. Everyone who wants a job will have to live in Fargo or Bismarck; not a lot of choice there. I'd say ND is about as good as MT when it comes to arranging smart migration.
SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota is like North Dakota but better. We want Pennington with Rapid City, as well as the Black Hills counties bordering Wyoming (Lawrence, Butte, Custer, Fall River), Hughes and Stanley counties surrounding the tiny capital of Pierre, and the southeastern corner with Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and commute possibilities to Sioux City, IA and maybe even Omaha, NE. South Dakota is about as good as it gets when it comes to arranging smart migration. It even has some sub-1000 population counties for the Zack Basses of the world. We want to avoid the reservations and larger towns where we don't need to go (Aberdeen).
VERMONT
We want to avoid the most statist areas (Bennington, Windham, Rutland, and Addison Counties and downtown Burlington). We want to target Chittenden County outside Burlington (jobs & university), Washington County (capital), the Northeast Kingdom counties of Lamoille, Orleans, Caledonia, and Essex, and other counties bordering NH where tax pressure is greatest (Orange, Windsor). Taking Washington County would probably be the most difficult part of this whole endeavor (Montpelier is pretty statist), but overall VT's potential for smart migration is about equal with MT's.
WYOMING
We want to avoid the Californicated part (Teton County), and the reservation (Fremont), but other than that, WY is fairly wide open. We need Uinta for commutability, Albany for the university, Laramie for the capital, Natrona for jobs (Casper), Park, Big Horn, and Sheridan for influence on MT and existing libertarian tendencies, Hot Springs and Washakie for climate, and Goshen for small town lovers (Torrington, access to Scottsbluff, NE). Niobrara is good for Zack Bass & friends, with under 1000 residents. Campbell County with Gillette might also be an attractive location. The only problem with WY is that it's difficult to get the "corridors" connecting all our targeted areas. I would rank WY about even with ND: ND has corridors but fewer options for jobs & commuting. WY is better on this measure than MT & VT because there are no real statist areas that we would have to struggle to overcome.
SUMMARY
My rough ranking of the states on possibilities for smart migration would go like this: SD>ND=WY>MT=VT>NH=ID>ME>DE. Perhaps others will think of possibilities I have not mentioned that will alter this ranking a bit.
