Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Simple - Pick the Smallest...  (Read 19234 times)

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2002, 12:20:37 am »

Click here for the voter turnout and election results of 2000 and 2002 (last thread on page).

188,533 ballots (78.1%)

 241,200 registered voters

« Last Edit: November 08, 2002, 12:22:39 am by JT »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2002, 04:28:47 am »

The actual voter turnout percentage seemed rather key, as it might indicate what we might be up against if we ticked off the locals and they all (or a serious percentage) decided to show up to vote.

This is definitely a key percentage for that very reason.  Also key, I believe, is the voting age population.  There are people out there of voting age right now who are not even registered to vote because they think their vote doesn't count, etc...  But if we start stirring up the water, we could prompt them into action.  For that reason, this % reveals the total theoretical amount we could be up against, while actual voter turnout shows what we will likely be up against.

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2002, 06:01:23 pm »

But a lot of the people who don't vote will be very receptive to our ideas.  Don't forget that.  Hopefully we can convince those people to register and maybe even become activists for us.  Historically, the people who are most receptive to Libertarian ideas are the ones who don't already have their minds made up politically.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2002, 01:10:15 am »

Historically, the people who are most receptive to Libertarian ideas are the ones who don't already have their minds made up politically.

Very true.  The voting age population stats could be indicative of what we could be up against, or what basis of support we might have waiting for us in the wings.

If we come along with a message that is really unique, and this one will be, we may stir people to action who have otherwise given up on the system.

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2002, 04:03:13 am »

I do understand the concepts of gaining support from the current residents of such a state, but if 20,000 is enough to sway any vote, as it is in Wyoming for example, where the Senatorial election was about 95,000 for each candidate, it will win the day.  In the society that we have today, it is highly unlikely that the existing factions could agree to organize against Free Staters in time to prevent the spread of freedom.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2002, 08:25:55 pm »

I do understand the concepts of gaining support from the current residents of such a state, but if 20,000 is enough to sway any vote, as it is in Wyoming for example, where the Senatorial election was about 95,000 for each candidate, it will win the day.  In the society that we have today, it is highly unlikely that the existing factions could agree to organize against Free Staters in time to prevent the spread of freedom.


Generally Republicans are conservative in the South and West.
Generally Republicans are moderates in the Northeast.

So, generally R and D are more likely to agree on more issues in the Northeast.  I am not sure if that applys in this case or not.
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2002, 11:15:52 pm »

Freedomroad is right about the Northeast, Liberal Repubs and Demos might be able to have a coalition there.

I'd say the same is true in the Northwest.  I'd say Montana and Idaho are too close to Washington from that perspective.

Wyoming would work (Western) (I'm not really trying to push Wyoming, but the recent election results seem to indicate that 20,000 votes would allow freeing the government most effectively).
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2002, 07:08:27 am »

Wyoming would work (Western) (I'm not really trying to push Wyoming, but the recent election results seem to indicate that 20,000 votes would allow freeing the government most effectively).

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.

It is also second only to Montana in regard to positioning, as it neighbors several other liberty-friendly states where we could easily expand in the future.  But it trumps Montana overall because its population, voting age population, and voter-turnout is so much more favorable to us.  Montana also has more of a Green Party presence than Wyoming does.

We also have a chance to bring real economic prosperity to Wyoming in a shorter amount of time than elsewhere (other than perhaps ND).  This, in turn, could lead the people of that state to appreciate our presence more than they would in a richer, more populous state where our short term presence would basically amount to more competition for housing, a longer line at the store, and more traffic on the road.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2002, 10:32:18 pm »

Quote
Quote

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.


I thought not being near coasts and borders was a bad thing.  Why do you think it is better to not be near a border or coast?
Logged

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2002, 11:35:06 pm »

if we're in the middle of the country, then noone will care about us.  It's easier for the feds to have their way in border states...
Logged

Tyler

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Making soap!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2002, 12:36:49 am »

Oh, I'm quite sure they're reading everything on this board right now. However, the only states with useful borders, in my opinion, are Montana, Alaska, and Maine (the first is huge and next to Canada, the second is gigantic with two neighbouring countries, and the third has one of the largest coastlines in the country and an international border), and I think two out of those three won't finish in the top five (Alaska would probably be your best bet if everyone moved there, but too many people in your project seem to truly mind the cold, and a good many others think Maine is just too statist).

No, I think if reforming this country from the inside, and really precluding the possibility of seccession (which was rather remote to begin with), is your ultimate goal, a landlocked state isn't a bad choice. I will reiterate that Wyoming is a pretty good choice, but, South Dakota, probably the state you hear the least of, isn't too bad of a pick either (even if it has two democratic senators, including the loathsome Mr Daschle).
Logged
The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law.

Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet V.i

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2002, 03:40:07 am »

Quote
Quote

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.


I thought not being near coasts and borders was a bad thing.  Why do you think it is better to not be near a border or coast?

Initially, I thought that it was better to be near a border or coast, but this was mainly with regard to trade and the future likelihood of secession.  Then, various issues with regard to homeland security and the drug war began to make me think that it was probably not a good idea after all.

The biggest problem we face in those areas is the fact that the federal government is tightening security there, and closely monitoring who and what comes and goes across the border or through the ports.  State and local officials are backing them in these efforts, and the general public is also behind the effort due to fears about the possibility of another 9/11 or drug smuggling from Canada, etc.  

The FSP's goal is to set up a free state, one in which there will be less scrutiny and restriction of those who come and go.  This fundamentally conflicts with the federal government's homeland security agenda and the general attitude of the American people, whom it seems, would rather trade their liberty for "security."  This increases the likelihood that we will clash with the feds in areas where they have legitimate, constitutional authority:  border defense, customs, etc...  They would have the support of local and state government behind them, as well as the general population (for the above stated reasons).

Some people think that we should have border or port access in order to thwart the feds in a conflict, such as continuing trade if they should cut us off in some other way.  Others, again, see them as an avenue to facilitating our possible secession in the future.

Given the risks involved, I have come to believe that it is better for us to avoid these areas because of the inherent problems that come with them:  1) the feds have indisputable, constitutional authority there, and 2) fear of 9/11 or drug traffic will bring added scrutiny and condemnation on us for attempting to create a free state where one is seen as, well, less than desirable (by the American public).

Check out the following imbedded links.  The first was originally created to discuss TEOTWAWKI scenarios, but some recent posts have changed the tune to more of a discussion of the merits of borders and ports in general.  Scroll down to the bottom for those remarks:

Maybe we *should* pick an inland state

Also, see the following for further thoughts on the issue:

Pick a Midwestern State
« Last Edit: November 11, 2002, 03:42:07 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2002, 08:59:07 am »

Initially, I thought that it was better to be near a border or coast, but this was mainly with regard to trade and the future likelihood of secession.  Then, various issues with regard to homeland security and the drug war began to make me think that it was probably not a good idea after all.

The biggest problem we face in those areas is the fact that the federal government is tightening security there, and closely monitoring who and what comes and goes across the border or through the ports.  State and local officials are backing them in these efforts, and the general public is also behind the effort due to fears about the possibility of another 9/11 or drug smuggling from Canada, etc.  

The FSP's goal is to set up a free state, one in which there will be less scrutiny and restriction of those who come and go.  This fundamentally conflicts with the federal government's homeland security agenda and the general attitude of the American people, whom it seems, would rather trade their liberty for "security."  This increases the likelihood that we will clash with the feds in areas where they have legitimate, constitutional authority:  border defense, customs, etc...  They would have the support of local and state government behind them, as well as the general population (for the above stated reasons).

Some people think that we should have border or port access in order to thwart the feds in a conflict, such as continuing trade if they should cut us off in some other way.  Others, again, see them as an avenue to facilitating our possible secession in the future.

Given the risks involved, I have come to believe that it is better for us to avoid these areas because of the inherent problems that come with them:  1) the feds have indisputable, constitutional authority there, and 2) fear of 9/11 or drug traffic will bring added scrutiny and condemnation on us for attempting to create a free state where one is seen as, well, less than desirable (by the American public).

Check out the following imbedded links.  The first was originally created to discuss TEOTWAWKI scenarios, but some recent posts have changed the tune to more of a discussion of the merits of borders and ports in general.  Scroll down to the bottom for those remarks:

Maybe we *should* pick an inland state

Also, see the following for further thoughts on the issue:

Pick a Midwestern State

Thank you for your insightful answers.  I am still not sure of this although i do see your point.

I'll think more about your points and they might reinforce my already favorite choice of WY.  They also make SD and DE look good but I think DE is pretty much a lost cause and I guess you could argue that having a coast is also bad.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2003, 02:29:34 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

RidleyReport

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3557
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2002, 04:25:08 pm »

<<We also have a chance to bring real economic prosperity to Wyoming in a shorter amount of time than elsewhere (other than perhaps ND).  This, in turn, could lead the people of that state to appreciate our presence more than they would in a richer, more populous state where our short term presence would basically amount to more competition for housing, a longer line at the store, and more traffic on the road.>>

Bingo.  That is what keeps failing to get enough attention  in these debates.  We keep talking too much about what's good for *us.*  But what do the people who already live there want?  Would we be a help or a hindrance to their quality of life *as they perceive it?*  
To me that's more important than even the population question.  

Ability to get us going in a western state will depend on our abillity to create jobs; that's why we need to be working on that as hard on that (such as some are doing under the "FSP business" threads).

Also some of these voter numbers do seem to indicate we wouldn't even have to run for office to start massively impacting election outcomes in WY or ND.   That's another way to stay popular....just be a voter instead of a politician.
Logged
http://RidleyReport.com
http://NHexit.com - If Britain can do it, New Hampshire can do it

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2002, 03:07:32 am »

Also some of these voter numbers do seem to indicate we wouldn't even have to run for office to start massively impacting election outcomes in WY or ND.   That's another way to stay popular....just be a voter instead of a politician.

Very good point.  An FSPer could have more sheer impact in such a state just by voting as opposed to having to actively take on a run for public office, which many more would have to do out east in order to have an equivalent impact.  This would allow us to have more bang for our political buck overall, and it would allow us to make changes much sooner as well.

Eastern elections are generally much more expensive, and the political infrastructure tends to be much more entrenched (often related to expense as fewer can afford to run).  We could spend a considerable amount of time, effort, and expense just trying to gain minimal access to such a system to say nothing of changing it.  And for a new political movement, time, effort, and funding are at a premium as it is.

Joining up with an established party like the GOP could possibly offset some of that time, effort, and expense that would otherwise be needed to access the system, but this in turn would make us more dependent upon that party and thus more restricted by its wishes.

I'd rather see us somewhere it would take less time, effort, and expense for us to access the system, and where we can do so more on our own as opposed to being dependent upon those who could betray us or marginalize us in exchange for "helping us."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up