Discerning members might very well ask what significance the population element holds for us, particularly in light of various contentions being offered by those in favor of our higher population states. In answer to those contentions, I maintain that there are numerous reasons why population should be a consideration for us, even a primary consideration.
Some of you have seen these statistics and thoughts before, and, if so, then you probably already have established an opinion on the matter. However, many have joined since our intitial discussions of population, and this essay is primarily directed to their attention.
Population was the measurement by which the call for 20,000 activists was made, and the primary measurement by which the FSP first selected its candidate states.In his essay
What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish? FSP president Jason Sorens revealed that the FSP's target participation level of 20,000 activists (as well as the slate of candidate states) was chosen based on the example of Quebec's Parti Quebecois, which achieved a parliamentary majority in Quebec in 1976:
Jason wrote:
"At the time, the PQ had a paid membership of roughly 100,000, while the population of Quebec at that time was 6.2 million. In other words, having a paid member for every 62 citizens of the province gave the PQ a parliamentary majority. Applying the same ratio to the FSP's membership goal, we get 1.2 million population for a state in which 20,000 party members could win majorities at the state level. The following states have less than 1.2 million population: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island (Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine are close)."
Thus, we see here that the first consideration in framing the FSP was to target smaller population states so that FSP activists could achieve at least a 1 to 62 saturation level in regard to the overall population of that state. This only makes sense. If you are attempting to influence the political process with a group of like-minded individuals, it is advantageous for that group to be as large as possible in relation to the target state's population. This gives you a larger percentage of the vote to count on, enables you to reach more of the population because there are fewer of them to reach in relation to your activists, and reduces the degree to which activist attrition could harm your efforts.
Using 2000 Census Bureau numbers, 20,000 FSP activists in each of our candidate states would work out as follows in terms of a ratio of 1 activist per a certain number of state residents:
Wyoming - 1 to 24.5
Vermont - 1 to 30.4
Alaska - to 31.3
North Dakota - 1 to 32.1
South Dakota - 1 to 37.7
Delaware - 1 to 39.2
Montana - 1 to 45.1
New Hampshire - 1 to 61.8
Maine - 1 to 63.8
Idaho - 1 to 64.7
But say that we don't get 20,000 participants. With, say, only 15,000 participants, we get the following:
Wyoming: 1 to 33
Vermont - 1 to 40.6
Alaska - 1 to 41.8
North Dakota - 1 to 42.8
South Dakota - 1 to 50.3
Delaware - 1 to 52.2
Montana - 1 to 60.1
New Hampshire: 1 to 82.4
Maine: 1 to 85
Idaho: 1 to 86.3
Just for reference, the 2000 Census total populations for these states were as follows:
Wyoming - 493,782
Vermont - 608,827
North Dakota - 642,200
Alaska - 626, 932
South Dakota - 754,844
Delaware - 783,600
Montana - 902,195
New Hampshire - 1,235,786
Maine - 1,274,923
Idaho - 1,293,953
Their voting-age populations were:
Wyoming - 364,909
Alaska - 436,215
Vermont - 461,304
North Dakota - 481,351
South Dakota - 552,195
Delaware - 589,013
Montana -672,133
Idaho - 924,923
New Hampshire - 926,224
Maine - 973,685
There are, I believe, legitimate concerns that the FSP will either not attract 20,000, all 20,000 might not move, and that the dreaded "80/20" rule could apply to those that do move, meaning that 80% would do very little while 20% do most of the work - a reliable standard in just about any group endeavor one can imagine. Wyoming protects us more than any other state when it comes to the potential affect such issues could have on our success in creating a free state. Consider a scenario in which we do reach 20,000 activists, all of which move, and then apply the 80/20 scenario. Twenty percent of 20,000 is just 4,000 persons doing the majority of the work, and looks this way when compared against the 2000 Census numbers for each state, and, just to be generous, I'll compare 4,000 effective activists to only voting-age population for each state:
Wyoming - 1 to 91
Alaska - 1 to 109
Vermont - 1 to 115
North Dakota - 1 to 120
South Dakota - 1 to 138
Delaware - 1 to 147
Montana - 1 to 168
Idaho - 1 to 231
New Hampshire - 1 to 231
Maine - 1 to 243
Three points of contention now arise: 1) If the FSP narrowed these ten states down using Jason's 1 to 62 ratio, then it stands to reason that we could be successful in any of these states. So why continue to quibble on population? 2) Why be so gloomy? Have a little faith and hope for the best. After all, we're all extremely motivated to work for liberty, aren't we? 3) What really counts is that the native population of the state be liberty-minded. If they are, then population is an advantage, or at least less of a problem because we'd have more allies.