Are you saying every activist has to go to every corner of the state? I was more in the thinking we would do mostly in the district we live in and then some in the state capitol.
What I am saying is that in a physically-big, low-population state like Wyoming, there is a big chunk of the population you are simply not going to be able to politick with in an effective manner. Think of it in terms of humans per square mile, and combine that with the question "Why would someone want to live where there were no other humans within a 2 days' horseback ride?" Those folks are out there, and they don't particularly want to be disturbed.
In contrast, the people in New Hampshire, erroneously falling under the same statistical category as our atavistic friends in Wyoming, are of a very different sort indeed. They are never far from their neighbors, at least by Wyoming standards (one can imagine a Wyomingite suffering fits of claustrophobia in New Hampshire's most 'remote' regions). In fact, they are near enough to be personally involved in local and state politics. Both culturally and physically, they will be easier to approach. This factor may outweigh the testament of statistics that lump people into categories, as if 'rural' in Wyoming means the same thing as 'rural' in New Hampshire.
Hell, Wyoming has counties bigger than New Hampshire -- Fremont county alone is over 12,000 square miles!
Anyway, if the FSP is going to concentrate in a single location, then statewide population and disbursal may not matter, but then you run the risk of being seen as an enemy of the rest of the state. Particularly the rural folks in Wyoming. We'll be those 'crazy cityfolk' trying to invade the State and take over the Capital. There will be no easy cure for that, as it will be (from their perspective) quite true. You really can't disabuse irate ranchers of their view of the truth, at least without establishing some communication (see my original premise).
Also, there is the jobs issue. My experience with places like Wyoming (I used to live in Dillon, CO), is that you really have to bring your own money -- they have few jobs and they are not all that great. Locals are highly preferred. Career changes for many may be in order (unless we have a big contingent of oil & gas workers or ranch hands). And sparse jobs means geographic dispersal -- only LARGE urban centers can absorb thousands of new job-seekers. A 5000-worker influx to Casper, WY would be a greater than 10% increase in population!
Anyway, I don't want to sound negative on Wyoming, it's just that I think that all those wide-open spaces have a built-in downside along with their obvious appeals. Living in Wyoming
somewhere might be a feasible thing, even desireable, but concentrating thousands of new folks into a single region and expecting to have a big effect on state politics might be a little harder than the low population numbers
alone may suggest.
RS