Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Narrowing It Down  (Read 15188 times)

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down - Total Pop, Government, & Gov Emp.
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2002, 05:01:49 am »

Thus far, we have measured three fundamental criteria for choosing a free state:

1.  Population statistics
2.  Government stability, structure, and dependency
3.  % of state and local government employees as compared to the voting age population

The states are now ranked as follows:

Wyoming - (263 + 437+ 0) = 700 points
South Dakota - (257 + 265 + 48) = 570 points
Alaska - (64 + 362 + 0) = 426 points
Vermont - (109 + 274 + 0) = 383 points
Idaho - (197 + 167 + 47) = 411 points
North Dakota - (190 + 182+0) = 372 points
Delaware - (198 + 88 + 0) = 286 points
Montana - (61 + 168 + 46) = 275 points
New Hampshire - (127 + 93 + 50) = 270 points
Maine - (55 + 164 + 49) = 268 points

Some states picked up no points in that last area because there was only one category and we were taking only the top five placers.  The biggest change was that Idaho unseated North Dakota as the overall fifth place candidate.

Any thoughts?  Good?  Bad?  So-so?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2002, 06:55:13 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2002, 05:08:01 am »

Robert,
I'm disappointed that Maine is doing so poorly. Maybe the Mainers can shed some light. Yet Wyoming is on top of the pack, and as I review it viability, perhaps rightly so. Perhaps give your tabulations a day for Jason to catch up. After all, that's what grad students are supposed to do best -- make sense of statistics by using rigourous analyses. I was just getting into that with a few grad courses when I decided that my anti-government political individualism would short-circuit a career in forest management.

Maine did place second in the most recent tally, so it may be on its way back up the ladder, who knows?  

Yes, I agree that it's a good idea to let these stats sit for awhile.  I don't think I'll add any more for another day, and see what Jason says about how it looks so far.  Changes may need to be made somewhere, and I'm certainly no born number-cruncher.  The whole system may be unviable for all I know.   ;D

And, yes, I can sympathize on the career dilemma.  My own political philosophies effectively ended any hopes I had once had of maybe joining up with the FBI.  After a certain age, I didn't even bother thinking about it anymore.   ;)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2002, 06:56:45 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2002, 05:48:23 am »

I have a quesiton.

Since so much time is being spent on generating numbers
on what state is best, will there be a vote on the best state
or will what ever state is on top after all the numbers are
generated, by default be the state.

If there will still be a vote by individuals, why spend so much
time generating numbers.

These numbers do not take into count wants or emotions
and a lot of ppl will not care about numbers but emotions.

Just wondering.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2002, 06:53:41 am »


I have a quesiton.

Since so much time is being spent on generating numbers
on what state is best, will there be a vote on the best state
or will what ever state is on top after all the numbers are
generated, by default be the state.

If there will still be a vote by individuals, why spend so much
time generating numbers.

These numbers do not take into count wants or emotions
and a lot of ppl will not care about numbers but emotions.

Just wondering.


I think you have misinterpreted the intention here.

Of course there will still be a vote; nothing's going to change that, nor is anything to the contrary being suggested here.  The only purpose of this thread was to take some of the massive amount of information we have on the states and put it together in some sort of heirarchy and to compare the states to that information to see how they measure up.  This is one way of doing it, not necessarily even the right way.  It was an idea I had, so I went with it.  I've been asking for input and ways of making it better, pointing out problems with it, etc...

So, no, there's no intention behind this other than simply putting numbers together in a certain way and seeing how they work out, and seeing if we can learn anything from it.

For those who aren't concerned about the numbers then, as you suggest, it won't matter.  But there are others who are concerned about the numbers, and they may find it interesting.

RidleyReport

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3527
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2002, 08:14:52 am »

Eddie wrote:

<<Jobs and population in my opinion should be the only PRIMARY factors to consider.  By jobs I mean ACCESS TO A MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA.
>>

Of all the people here I may be one of the ones most dependent on a metro area for good wages....yet we should ask whether we are looking at this backwards.  
Perhaps a pre-existing vibrant economy is good reason to *avoid* a state, not to select it.   States with lots of jobs will not benefit from our presence near as much as those which lack them.   In fact, moving to prosperous metro-area states could trigger or exacerbate housing shortages.   We need to be thinking about the effect our actions will have on current residents of the chosen state, not just what we think is good for us.  
This is why I'm tilting toward Montana and shying away from New Hampshire and especially Delaware.

If we are who and what I suspect we are, jobs and growth may just go wherever we do.

Dada
Logged
http://RidleyReport.com
http://NHexit.com - If Britain can do it, New Hampshire can do it

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2002, 09:02:00 am »

Robert, I'm confused about the way you're generating the points.  Why rank them and then divide each one by a single point?  Why not simply convert the array of values into a 0-10 scale as the spreadsheet and Rank the States page do?  That way you can take into account not only the ranking, but how far apart states are from each other.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2002, 09:00:33 pm »


Robert, I'm confused about the way you're generating the points.  Why rank them and then divide each one by a single point?  Why not simply convert the array of values into a 0-10 scale as the spreadsheet and Rank the States page do?  That way you can take into account not only the ranking, but how far apart states are from each other.


Jason,

I think I understand what you're asking, but I'm not really certain how to do that.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm no statistical genius!  I did wonder how to weight each category differently, but score the states in order and also account for how far apart they were from one another (and thought that maybe a percentage basis would be best), but I wasn't really sure how to do that quite right.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2002, 09:08:36 pm »


Robert,
While I was taking a walk outside and away from the computer (imagine that ;D  )
I was wondering why the bottom states points were so few and dropping so fast.
Ah, Hah!
By not including all ten in the point accumulation, but only five at a time, if a state misses by a smidgeon getting into the top five, it gets zero.
Methinks to go back and edit in the other five and then all ten are included.


Joe, thanks for your comments as always!  They're greatly appreciated.

Yes, I was including the top five from each category for the sake of narrowing down the best options, but I understand what you're saying and I can go back and refigure them with all ten states instead.  I was originally thinking:  "Narrow them down to the perhaps only the very best choices when arranged in this fashion and according to this heirarchy of criteria."  But perhaps we should just go ahead and weigh them all.

Quote

Also:
The population growth numbers you cited earlier were not the census numbers but from "FAIR"
http://www.fairus.org/html/042uspj1.htm
Their numbers are sometimes lower than those from the Census, sometimes higher, sometimes very close.
Now that we've narrowed the states down to ten, we could fetch projections from state demographers. Yet the states often just parrot the Census unless they've enough resources to do their own projections -- as California has done. If each of the candidates has their own independent projections, or we can find a third such projection for each, then we could go with the two closest out of three.


Thanks, I can clarify that on FAIR.  As for state counts, I've noticed that a few do seem to do their own projections.  I believe that I saw some indication of that from Texas, and Utah at least.  I can check for others as well though.  What I've mainly seen in the past does seem to reinforce what you've said about states just using the federal numbers though.  Maybe they just feel like letting the feds spend the money!   :)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2002, 10:55:06 pm »



I think I understand what you're asking, but I'm not really certain how to do that.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm no statistical genius!  I did wonder how to weight each category differently, but score the states in order and also account for how far apart they were from one another (and thought that maybe a percentage basis would be best), but I wasn't really sure how to do that quite right.


It's not too hard really; check out how the state comparison matrix does it:
http://www.freestateproject.org/files/statecomparisons.xls

Basically you take the worst state on a measure and give it 0, and the best state 10.  Then the states between those 2 fall between 0 and 10 depending on how close they are to each of the others.  So if state A scores 40 on some variable, and that's considered the worst, while state B scores 10, and that's considered the best, and state C scores 20, then when rescaled A will be given 0, B will be given 10, and C will be given 6.667.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2002, 12:50:42 am »

Jason, thanks for the info.  I took a look at the comparison chart again, and your example, and will see if I can refigure the math here.

I'm not very good with that sort of thing though, so it may take awhile.   ;D

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2002, 02:20:12 am »

Eddie wrote:
Of all the people here I may be one of the ones most dependent on a metro area for good wages....yet we should ask whether we are looking at this backwards.  
Perhaps a pre-existing vibrant economy is good reason to *avoid* a state, not to select it.   States with lots of jobs will not benefit from our presence near as much as those which lack them.   In fact, moving to prosperous metro-area states could trigger or exacerbate housing shortages.   We need to be thinking about the effect our actions will have on current residents of the chosen state, not just what we think is good for us.  
This is why I'm tilting toward Montana and shying away from New Hampshire and especially Delaware.

If we are who and what I suspect we are, jobs and growth may just go wherever we do.

In his article on North Dakota, Tim Condon suggests that the FSP will bring more in the way of economic prosperity wherever it goes, and, in conjunction with your remarks, I would tend to agree.  We might actually stand a better chance for success in a state where the economy is poor.  After all, if the economy is doing well, people tend to have more money in their pockets, a higher standard of living, and a greater overall sense of personal satisfaction.  This economic soundness could then proportionately reflect political apathy, less of a desire to implement the type of fundamental changes that the FSP is advocating.

We saw a prime example of this during Clinton's second term.  The country was doing well economically, this was erroneously attributed to Clinton, and people in general were very apathetic when it came to the march of socialism and character questions dealing with their president.  They generally thought that nothing was broken, therefore, nothing needed to be fixed.

See these and some other related thoughts just posted here (Reconsidering Wyoming):

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=35;start=62
« Last Edit: October 29, 2002, 03:49:41 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2002, 08:00:53 am »


I agree with you about the 92 vote for Perot. At the risk of being called a "mushy centrist" or "wacky nativist," I was still quite young in 92 and trying to find my own political views as opposed to those of my family. Perot came along and represented a strong option (I heard change and fiscal conservatism in his message) to express my dissatisfaction with the other options. I voted for him then continued with my search to better define my personal views. The rest is history and here I am now. In any case, I suspect that my story is very similar to most who voted for Perot and that many of these people would be our top supporters if we introduced our ideas in the right way.


This was certainly my story, except for the part about being young.

Phyllis
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2002, 04:51:54 pm »

Quote
Tim Condon suggests that the FSP will bring more in the way of economic prosperity wherever it goes, and, in conjunction with your remarks, I would  tend to agree.  We might actually stand a better chance for success in a state where the economy is poor.
And people in the host state will appreciate the FSP more.

Wyoming has everything that Montana has - but with half the population to deal with -- thus double the chances for Free State success.

Economic Development Directory - Wyoming
http://www.ecodevdirectory.com/wyoming.htm
Logged

MrLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
  • Freedom shall not be limited.
    • Toby is your friend!
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2002, 05:02:54 pm »

But if a state has a poor economy, will we really be able to help it that much?

For example, Wyoming -- how are the resources for transportation?  Will we have to find private investors to build highways and roads?  What about water, electricity, etc?

I know, its better in many ways because it lets us build from SCRATCH, which is great -- but with only 20,000 people, it won't be enough to really get things going strongly...  Unless we start a free state and plan on doing something similiar to Gault's Gulch -- start the state off city by city...

dada
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Narrowing It Down
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2002, 05:10:33 pm »

And how long will it take us to help the economy?  Most of us probably couldn't survive without jobs for more than a few months.  The availability of jobs is an issue we must seriously consider.  We can't glibly dismiss it as something that will take care of itself.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

anything