Print

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

[StevenN]

This is why we find it so dangerous that people are cheering NH without really taking a hard look at the data.

Hmm...I've taken a hard look at the data. And it looks like you have too. I seem to find one - and really only one - objection to NH: population. Now, you may put population as your most important variable. In that case, NH, ME, ID should not be considered. But what about those of us who are not as worried about a high pop., as long as it is balanced by a strong libertarian-minded citizenry? I guess I just don't get why people get so worked up over population differences! By 2025, according to projections, NH will still be under the 1.5m limit.

A quarter of NH's legislature is not from NH at all, but the much more statist Massachusetts. Another quarter of NH's legislature are current or retired lawyers or government employees.

So, everyone coming from Mass. must be a statist, right? What if they're liberty-friendly tax refugees, as I believe.

This must be compared to other states. Frankly, I'd think that a legislature that had ONLY 1/4 lawyers and gov't employees would be in good shape.

Most of the foreseeable problems with Wyoming are concerning in the short-term, but much less so as the time frame gets larger.

Sorry, but I think it's the other way around. IMO, nearly all of WY and other parts of the west are living on borrowed time. As productivity on farms increases (especially with gains in chem/bio engineering), people will be leaving agriculture and ranching. And if we ever get real free trade, WY mining, timber, and manufacturing sectors will get hit hard, if not be evaporated. The oil can only last about 10 years, I think. Right there you can basically encompass most of WY's economy. No one can know for sure, but I'd say that by 2025, WY will only be to contain a fraction of the employment it has now, and that's with the FSP.

WY is starting to rapidly fall in my personal rankings, 1. Because the economy gets worse every time I look at it, and 2. The people don't seem as liberty-friendly as I had once thought (but that's only a minor reason)

[Robert H.]

It has some major downsides as well, however. Wyoming's projected job growth is the poorest of the ten states under consideration. 20,000 people moving in over a period of 5 years will certainly put a strain on the areas that get larger influxes of people.

Remember though, that Wyoming does not need 20,000 to reach the equivalent degree of saturation as we would have at 20,000 in our three most populous states (Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine).  The 1 to 62 ratio that Jason used in coming up with the 20,000 activist number could be satisfied with less than 9,000 in Wyoming.

Our success in creating a free state, not just in recruiting 20,000, is what matters most.  For this reason, jobs for 20,000 is actually a must-have requirement only for those states where 20,000 are actually needed to reach that 1 to 62 ratio.

Another issue is the social climate of the state. The governor of Wyoming said we would be welcome if we respected the laws of the state, but the welcome we have recieved from the LP and other officials there, is not nearly as warm as what NH has been putting forward.

Keep in mind here that the governor of Wyoming is also a Democrat, a type of politician that usually does not even pay lip service to the small government agenda.  The governor did say that we would be welcome to participate in state politics, and coming from a Democrat, that is something particularly unusual, especially when you consider the less than warm reception we've received from GOP governors in other states.  As for obeying the law, given the reputation that libertarians have acquired over the years as being a fringe element, I can understand why he would say something like this.  The thought of 20,000 drug-users or some such stereotypical liberatarian influx rousing the citizenry or bringing in the wrath of the feds would not be an unrealistic fear for him.

In regard to Benson's warm welcome to the FSP, it's nice to see, but, it's really a win-win situation for him in any case.  He's for smaller government; libertarians certainly can't do him any harm there.  Yet, I question whether he would support a full libertarian agenda, which would involve more than just tax breaks.  Even so, the FSP would not be sufficient to take control of New Hampshire's huge legislature, at least anytime soon, so while he is certain to get what he wants from us, he might not ever have to give us all that we would want from him.  Win-win.  Why shouldn't he be glad to see the FSP?

And yes, I know that Benson appointed the LPNH chair to an Efficiency in Government Commission; however, government can always be more efficient in its regulation.  That's not necessarily an endorsement of the full libertarian agenda.  Show me a positive response from Benson in regard to suggestions from this commission like reducing gun-control, privatizing schools, de-criminalizing victimless crimes, etc., and then I'll be impressed.

Until then, I just don't see why the FSP wouldn't be a positive thing for him.  I'm not trying to be negative here, or to "spin" anything, but until we see otherwise, why should we believe that he is anything more than another small government conservative?  The comments given by those who attended the meeting with the governor didn't indicate that he would support anything that a conservative couldn't support, unless there were comments made that we haven't heard.

[freedomroad]

Wyoming:
-------------

Wyoming has it's own considerable benefits. It's plentiful land space and small population make it an ideal consideration for the goals of the FSP. It's population is .5 million, and only expected to grow to .7 million through 2025, making each of our individual members much more effective than in the doubly sized NH.

It has some major downsides as well, however. Wyoming's projected job growth is the poorest of the ten states under consideration.

It is not that bad.  It is 8th out of the 10 states

According to this factor, it is about even with New Hampshire,
"2. Future Job Health Level in the states:

This factor is somewhat important but not written in stone.  This number is figured by using two different government figured projections and is subject to change.  It is figured by dividing the 2012 projected population by the number of new jobs expected in each state by 2010.  The 2012 projected population numbers are figured by extrapolating the growth from 2000 to 2002 in each state.  This factor tells how many people it will take in each state by 2012 to produce the need for one new job.  The lower the number, the healthier a state’s job levels are.  In other words, the lower the number, the better.  

If you were to compare the states by region, the Mountain-west is best, followed by a tie between the Mid-west and Alaska, and the Northeast is last.  Interestingly enough, the best big state is Montana, the best mid-sized stated is South Dakota, and the best small state is Wyoming.  Idaho also does really well.  All four of these states border each other.  If these government projections hold up, this north Mountain-west/western plains region has a very good future job health level.  All four of these states seem to be on the same page.  On the other hand, in the north Northeast, Vermont and Maine are on the same downward spiral, while New Hampshire is a bright spot.  At least in this one category, the northern Northeast region is not one united region.

Future State Health Level

1. Montana
 10.18
 
2. Idaho
 11.41
 
3. South Dakota
 12.80
 
4. New Hampshire
 13.44
 
5. Wyoming
 14.30
 
6. Delaware
 14.97
 
7. Alaska
 15.20
 
8. North Dakota
 17.43*
 
9. Vermont
 19.01
 
10. Maine
 24.53"

20,000 people moving in over a period of 5 years will certainly put a strain on the areas that get larger influxes of people.

Since Wyoming is the fallback state, we can start moving there right after the vote.  That means we have 7-8 years to move there.

Luckily, both Cheyenne and Laramie are less than an hour from Ft. Collins, Co, a booming city with a growing tech economy. Evanston City is about an hour away from Salt Lake City, Utah.

Well, here are some more exact numbers:
Cheyenne is 40 min from Ft. Collins
Laramie is 50 min from Ft. Collins during the spring, summer, and fall (that road is closed during the winter)
Evanston is 50 min from the SLC MSA, but 1 hour 20 min from the actual city of Salt Lake
Torrington is 30 min from Scotts Bluff, NE (with an MSA of 35,000)

Another issue is the social climate of the state. The governor of Wyoming said we would be welcome if we respected the laws of the state, but the welcome we have recieved from the LP and other officials there, is not nearly as warm as what NH has been putting forward.

The LP of WY endorsed us.  As far as I know, that is the only Western candidate state LP to endorse us (I know AK did, also).  The LP of UT also endorsed us because (among other things) the UTLP state chair is a big FSP and WY fan.  Also, the Republican Party of WY has a plank in its platform that says it welcome all people on all sides of all issues into its party.  It says it even welcomes them to talk about their opinions on the issues.

Wyoming has bigger political districts than NH, making getting into legislature more difficult, and the lack of fusion candidates is certainly a bane in our direction.

Actually, that is misinformation put out by NH fans.  Wyoming has the smallest districts while, overall, NH's are the ninth smallest.  It is really sad that NH supports did this.  I am sorry that you fell for it.

See this report,
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2271

or

http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/districts.html

[freedomroad]

Sorry, but I think it's the other way around. IMO, nearly all of WY and other parts of the west are living on borrowed time. As productivity on farms increases (especially with gains in chem/bio engineering), people will be leaving agriculture and ranching. And if we ever get real free trade, WY mining, timber, and manufacturing sectors will get hit hard, if not be evaporated. The oil can only last about 10 years, I think. Right there you can basically encompass most of WY's economy. No one can know for sure, but I'd say that by 2025, WY will only be to contain a fraction of the employment it has now, and that's with the FSP.

Both Wyoming and New Hampire, along with ND and SD, have just about the lowest unenployment rates in the country.  On the other hand, OR, WA, and Alaska have some of the highest.

Natural resource use is on the way up in Wyoming.  Yes, oil, is on the way down.  However, natural gas, meth gas, wind, and a couple minerals are on their way up in production.  Wyoming has large supplies of several minerals and some of them are expected to last for over 100 years.  There are signs that timber production will soon be on the increase.  Even hunting will soon see a positive sign when the federal government leaves Wyoming alone and lets it follow the new Wyoming wolf hunting laws.

Every day, the Wyoming economy gets more diverse.  Businesses are coming from CO and UT because of the lower taxes and greater freedom in Wyoming.  Once we move there, and make Wyoming even more free, more companies will move.

In fact, while states like Idaho just released downgraded future job estimates, Wyoming's future job estimates showed a very large increase.  Much of this increase came from Gillette and Rock Springs, Wyoming (two towns with large natural resource groups) and Casper and Cheyenne (towns with all types of companies, including high tech).  

[Zack Bass]

  .... The 1 to 62 ratio that Jason used in coming up with the 20,000 activist number could be satisfied with less than 9,000 in Wyoming.
Our success in creating a free state, not just in recruiting 20,000, is what matters most.  For this reason, jobs for 20,000 is actually a must-have requirement only for those states where 20,000 are actually needed to reach that 1 to 62 ratio.

Jason's original idea was seriously flawed.  He said that one Activist could influence 62 others.  This may be true in the case of Quebecois who already more or less like the idea of secession, but it does not apply to our reforms, which are unalterably opposed by the vast majority of Americans in every State.
For example, do you think 20,000 Cannibals could influence 1,200,000 New Hampsters to legalize Cannibalism?  We are about like that.  In fact, the libertarians among us (myself included) would have Cannibalism between consenting adults legalized.

Talking pretty to the Statists will get us nowhere.  Our only chance is to concentrate a Majority of Porcupines into one county, if a Western State is chosen; or into one Town, if New Hampshire is chosen.  Then we can prove to hesitant libertarians that they do have a place where they can vote with their feet and become far Freer than where they are now; and they will arrive in droves.  Enough will come that we can outvote the Statists currently infesting the State  Two or three hundred thousand ought to do it... far fewer will be needed in Wyoming, but there could be bloodshed there.

[Kelton Baker]

  .... The 1 to 62 ratio that Jason used in coming up with the 20,000 activist number could be satisfied with less than 9,000 in Wyoming.
Our success in creating a free state, not just in recruiting 20,000, is what matters most.  For this reason, jobs for 20,000 is actually a must-have requirement only for those states where 20,000 are actually needed to reach that 1 to 62 ratio.

Jason's original idea was seriously flawed.  He said that one Activist could influence 62 others.  This may be true in the case of Quebecois who already more or less like the idea of secession, but it does not apply to our reforms, which are unalterably opposed by the vast majority of Americans in every State.
For example, do you think 20,000 Cannibals could influence 1,200,000 New Hampsters to legalize Cannibalism?  We are about like that.  In fact, the libertarians among us (myself included) would have Cannibalism between consenting adults legalized.

Talking pretty to the Statists will get us nowhere.  Our only chance is to concentrate a Majority of Porcupines into one county, if a Western State is chosen; or into one Town, if New Hampshire is chosen.  Then we can prove to hesitant libertarians that they do have a place where they can vote with their feet and become far Freer than where they are now; and they will arrive in droves.  Enough will come that we can outvote the Statists currently infesting the State  Two or three hundred thousand ought to do it... far fewer will be needed in Wyoming, but there could be bloodshed there.

Point taken, however, I would argue that the socialists are the cannibals here, and we are the ones begging not to be eaten; but you make a good point, Zack.

I propose that while you and others who go with you establish a remote county all to yourselves, the rest of us work to at least halt the growth of socialism in our state and let the rest of us try to give a good face to libertarianism at the political levels.  The work by the rest of us may result in your truly libertarian county or township being left alone.  You need to plan carefully where to locate in any state to avoid the perception of armed invasion, but I think you overstate the level of potential vigilantism by locals in all of Wyoming.

₃₄₁

[ZuG]

For example, do you think 20,000 Cannibals could influence 1,200,000 New Hampsters to legalize Cannibalism?

In short, Zack, no, I don't. That's why I'm hesitant about joining the project. If I do, I'll likely be opting out of the largest four states, since we'd have real problems creating success there. I would really like to be a part of the vote but I recognize that that may not be possible given the unsure political climate here in the forums.

Several others have pointed out some flaws in my analysis that make Wyoming look more appealing. Thank you. I am trying to be fair-minded and let people see that I really have done the digging and personal research on this (I pulled much of my statistics from the census myself). Wyoming is not the all-glorious State of Perfection(tm), but I do think it provides the largest chance of reasonable success for the FSP.

I like NH, I like it a lot in fact. I wish that Wyoming was offering us as warm a welcome as NH is. But I just don't think we could swing it given that it's already double the size of WY and growing faster in proportion.

Also, to those of you that pointed out that my analysis is very heavily weighed toward population issues: Why does population *not* matter to you? Population was the key factor in forming the FSP, to allow us to achieve a vocal minority that gets things done in the free state. I don't understand how you could say that we can just as easily succeed in a state with twice the population as one with half the population.

Do you *really* think you, personally, are going to convince 32 people to vote on your side with every single contraversial FSP issue, as would be required to achieve a 51% majority in NH?

If you are confident that you personally can do this, what about the rest of the FSP? As we have seen on these boards, there is a vocal minority of us that gets things done. The rest of the people are currently MIA. So on top of convincing your 32 people of the general population, are you personally going to be able to convince 4 less-active FSP members (80/20 rule) to get off their arses and convince 32 people of their own to vote with us on every contraversial issue?

Or, would it be easier for you personally to convince 160 (5*32) people to vote with us? Is there enough time in the day to sit down with enough regular statists and analyze all of the major contraversial platforms of libertarianism to convince them logically that we are correct? And this is just for a razor-thin majority on an important vote!

See how things quickly get complicated when you look at the numbers? We have a very vocal minority cheering us on in NH. But it's very important to understand that that minority is just that, a minority. They will hardly make a dent when it comes to convincing the general populace to be on our side.

In short, I don't see how anyone can logically say that a two-fold increase in population in one leading candidate versus another *isn't* important, when it's the entire basis of the existance of the FSP!

[jgmaynard]

I definately see the point of the people on these boards who are worried about the cheering on of NH at the expense of logical discourse.

Good thing it is logical cheering. Anyone who has read our 101 Reasons to vote for New Hampshire or our list of NH advantages with an open mind realizes that NH offers many, many advantages not found in other states.

But, many of those same people who support NH have been starting a lot of threads and saying a lot of things, not all of which are logical.

Actually, the "illogical" reasons are now on a list called "The reasons NH would not be the perfect choice for the FSP" which may be found at http://www.freestatenh.com/fspnhchoice.html

Touting only the best points of a place and ignoring the worst points should not have a place on these boards.

Every state has people touting for it, and when you want to express your support for something, you talk about it's good things. But, we haven't ignored the bad things, and have tried our best to explain why they are either minor issues (eg. population), or misunderstood in the light of the unique New England system of Government (eg. population)

It worries me greatly that there are people here who would not listen to reason even if you shoved it down their throat.

People look at different things, my friend. What's reason to one person is spin to another.

New Hampshire has a lot of benefits. There is an established LP cheering us on, lots of support in the forums and by members, and a legislature that allows fusion candidates, a big plus in it's direction. I can certainly see why people cheer it, though I think "cheering" anything is against the spirit of the FSP.

No. Cheering is a good thing, IMNSHO. It is back stabbing and personal attacks which have no place on this forum.
Plus you forgot the multi-seat districts that NH has. In many areas you only need to come in 5th, or 7th or even 14th place to win....

I worry, though, when it comes to NH, about it's population, and more importantly, it's projected population growth.

First, all the states are under the 1:62 ratio Jason proposed. Second, I don't think it is nearly as important to look at total population as it is to look at "What will it take to become as popular as the largest party in the state?" and "How receptive will the voters be to voting for someone with an (L) next to their name?
In NH, for instance , most state rep candidates only have ~2-3 volunteers and spend ~$500 to get elected. Even challenging all 400 seats, we could have parity with the largest party (R) with only 1200 acitivists and $200k. That's only about 1/16 the project's expect growth, and $10 a person. Put another way, if we get the full 20k, donating $100 each, we would have 16x the volunteers and 10x the money of the R's. And the people of NH are USED to voting for Lib candidates. They've elected more Libs than any other candidate state in the country.
In the words of Dr. Teeth of the Electric Mayhem, "Ain't nothing to it but to do it."

"A quarter of NH's legislature is not from NH at all, but the much more statist Massachusetts."

NH offers a haven to tax refugees from other NE states. If you saw the house vote on the last budget, you wouldn't be worried about it. There isn't any more avid supporter of a cause than a convert.

Another quarter of NH's legislature are current or retired lawyers or government employees.

And Tim Condon is a lawyer..... Your point is...?

This is a disturbing trend, and it indicates that getting a foothold in the NH government may not be as easy as we would like to think.

The election laws still make it so that we can essentially waltz into the statehouse en masse. Not sure what the occupations of the people who are going to lose to us have to do with it.

On the other hand, New Hampshire looks like a very good candidate right now. We should be able to get candidates elected within 5 years of our arrival,

Who said anything about 5 years? We have two elections every year in NH, and state rep races every two years. We're going to have the largest Libertarian caucus EVER in the NH state house in 2004. We have the plan, money and resources to put at LEAST 15 Libertarians in the NH State House next year. This is what porcupines will look like in the NH State House and the Senate. The largest Lib caucuses EVER are only 18 months away in NH.  

So, my view, and the view of many of my contemporaries is thus: Do you want the FSP to make the right choice for the short term, or the long term?

Both. That's why I am supporting New Hampshire.

Quote from: ZuG on Today at 01:36:27am

Since Wyoming is the fallback state

Can you explain this statement, please, Zug?

Actually, that is misinformation put out by NH fans.  Wyoming has the smallest districts while, overall, NH's are the ninth smallest.  It is really sad that NH supports did this.  I am sorry that you fell for it.

Misinformation? Our single seat districts are only ~3k people, as opposed to IIRC, ~8k for Wyoming, those are the only districts where you can compare the 2. In any district with more people, you don't have to come in first, meaning you can canvas to only a smaller group within the district.
Only looking at the single largest district in NH, and ignoring the fact that you can win by coming in 14th place the is not logical.
The only way that makes any sense due to the inherent differences in the systems is to look at min and max #'s of votes needed to win a state rep seat.

Show me a positive response from Benson in regard to suggestions from this commission like reducing gun-control, privatizing schools, de-criminalizing victimless crimes, etc., and then I'll be impressed.

Didn't read our press release, did ya, Zug?
Craig Benson told us school choice is one of the next to things which willl come off his desk. We have permitless open carry, no questions asked (did you hear what happened when two well armed porcupines during the Escape went into the same realtor which Drega shot up, and there was $5,000 on the table?), the easiest cc permits in the country and localities cannot make more restrictive gun laws than the state. Victimless crimes he said he would look at "one by one with an open mind". So, maybe we could only get 90% of our state agenda passed under Benson. Still, our Governor can out-lib your Governor. OR the Governor of ANY of the other states :p

Cheap, easily winnable elections, the FSP and Lib-friendliest Governor in the nation. The largest Lib caucus ever in only 18 months.

The New Hampshire Advantage.

[jenlee]

I think it is important to look at the entire population of all states. Then take the land mass into consideration.

East coast states has very little real room for expansion. And if there is no room for expansion what are we going to do in a few years if even more people wants to join us? Tell them no because there is no more room left? Not a very good plan/idea to me.

[Zack Bass]

I think it is important to look at the entire population of all states. Then take the land mass into consideration.
East coast states has very little real room for expansion. And if there is no room for expansion what are we going to do in a few years if even more people wants to join us? Tell them no because there is no more room left? Not a very good plan/idea to me.

That is the very least of our worries!  Too many Porcupines?
We could put 10 million Porcupines into New Hampshire and have the most powerful State in the country.  In the World!  Build up and down, if necessary.
Dense populations are no problem when the inhabitants aren't out to rob one another.  10 million sheeple might be a problem.  We're gonna weed those out.

The land area of the entire country of Singapore is 682.7 square kilometers, which works out to ...  ...   ...  ....... hell I don't know, less than 250 square miles I guess.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sn.html

And Hong Kong is less than twice that size, say 400 square miles.

And New Hampshire is nearly 9,000 square miles!!!  Over 5 million acres.  I say forget about that problem.

[ZionCurtain]

Another issue is the social climate of the state. The governor of Wyoming said we would be welcome if we respected the laws of the state, but the welcome we have recieved from the LP and other officials there, is not nearly as warm as what NH has been putting forward.

HAHAHAHAHA

If we respected the present Laws of the State, there would be no need for a Free State Project.  The whole point, as the Governor knows, is to change the Laws, otherwise you have moved your family to a featureless tundra for no advantage.

What state has featureless tundra? I am assuming you are referring to Alaska. Also changing a law is our goal but we must respect them until then, unless we all want to be in a freaking prison. Come on Bass use your head.

[Zack Bass]

What state has featureless tundra?

North Dakota.  Glacier scraped the trees off.

Most of the West in fact, compared to what we're accustomed to.
I don't mind that, if it gains me Freedom, but if we're going to be a powerless Minority, only a somewhat bigger Minority than in the general U.S. population as we have been heretofore, then I'd just as soon stay here on the beach.
If you're 10% of the Voters, evenly spread out in the State, you will never ever ever repeal a single Law.  The way to get our way is to be a Majority concentrated where we can prevail totally, then attract more support and spread from that beachhead to take over the entire State.

  ... changing a law is our goal but we must respect them until then, unless we all want to be in a freaking prison.

Wrong.  It will be the same as here:  We continue to violate their crummy Laws and make sure we don't get caught.  That does not mean that we respect the crummy Laws.
And when we control every single public office in a Western County, including the Sheriff's Office, we will be able to have far more Freedom than we have dared dream - RIGHT AWAY!!!.  That fact will make news everywhere in the World and will attract hundreds of thousands of Liberty Lovers from all over the U.S.

[jenlee]

Featureless tundra?  lol Now this is as stupid a thing I have read on these forums in a few days. It shows you have never been to Alaska nor have you any clue on what my state is like.

Unless of course you was talking Siberia? A good place for you I think.   And even there, it is not a featureless empty dead place. Not at all like the east coast nor wyoming. It is teeming with wildlife. The kind your states used to have way back before they was all killed off.

Another issue is the social climate of the state. The governor of Wyoming said we would be welcome if we respected the laws of the state, but the welcome we have recieved from the LP and other officials there, is not nearly as warm as what NH has been putting forward.

HAHAHAHAHA

If we respected the present Laws of the State, there would be no need for a Free State Project.  The whole point, as the Governor knows, is to change the Laws, otherwise you have moved your family to a featureless tundra for no advantage.

[ZionCurtain]

What state has featureless tundra?

North Dakota.  Glacier scraped the trees off.

Most of the West in fact, compared to what we're accustomed to.
I don't mind that, if it gains me Freedom, but if we're going to be a powerless Minority, only a somewhat bigger Minority than in the general U.S. population as we have been heretofore, then I'd just as soon stay here on the beach.
If you're 10% of the Voters, evenly spread out in the State, you will never ever ever repeal a single Law.  The way to get our way is to be a Majority concentrated where we can prevail totally, then attract more support and spread from that beachhead to take over the entire State.

  ... changing a law is our goal but we must respect them until then, unless we all want to be in a freaking prison.

Wrong.  It will be the same as here:  We continue to violate their crummy Laws and make sure we don't get caught.  That does not mean that we respect the crummy Laws.
And when we control every single public office in a Western County, including the Sheriff's Office, we will be able to have far more Freedom than we have dared dream - RIGHT AWAY!!!.  That fact will make news everywhere in the World and will attract hundreds of thousands of Liberty Lovers from all over the U.S.

Even Maynard a office holder said he doubts we could ever obtain a majority in NH. He lives there, what makes you think you know different?

[jenlee]

I see.............and of course you plan on doing what with any new people who might decide to join us in a few years? What with all that land NOT available where the hell will you put them?

Freeze em and stack them like cords of wood? Pack em in like sardines?  Oh yes sounds like a plan to me. NOT!!!

I think it is important to look at the entire population of all states. Then take the land mass into consideration.
East coast states has very little real room for expansion. And if there is no room for expansion what are we going to do in a few years if even more people wants to join us? Tell them no because there is no more room left? Not a very good plan/idea to me.

So zack ol boy, what exactly are you planning on doing with the people who wont kiss your ass? Throw them out of their own state? Rob them of  their lands and all they own? Please zack get a grip. You, me, nor any of us can do a damn thing to or against those people who wont kiss your ass. Because zack, if we ever try that, WE would be the ones out on our asses. Think before spouting if at all possible. Sheeple, yep and I am posting to one right now!

That is the very least of our worries!  Too many Porcupines?
We could put 10 million Porcupines into New Hampshire and have the most powerful State in the country.  In the World!  Build up and down, if necessary.
Dense populations are no problem when the inhabitants aren't out to rob one another.  10 million sheeple might be a problem.  We're gonna weed those out.

The land area of the entire country of Singapore is 682.7 square kilometers, which works out to ...  ...   ...  ....... hell I don't know, less than 250 square miles I guess.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sn.html

And Hong Kong is less than twice that size, say 400 square miles.

And New Hampshire is nearly 9,000 square miles!!!  Over 5 million acres.  I say forget about that problem.