Home

State Data

Related:

State Data

See also: State Reports

Contents:
  1. Theory
  2. Source Links
  3. General Data
  4. Economic and Political Data
  5. Rankings
  6. State Comparison Matrix (download in Excel 2000 format)
  7. State Comparison Matrix (download in Excel 5.0 format, suitable for Macs)
  8. Rank the States on Your Own Criteria >

    THEORY

    This section is intended to present the theory behind the measures we use below. Some of them are self-explanatory; some are not. Before reading this section, please take a look at the "where" section in the FAQ.

    The most important measure is number of voters. Technically, population is not the measure we are interested in most, but the number of voters. A lower number of voters means more influence for our 20,000 activists. However, a higher population may mean more future or potential voters! The correlation between the two variables is 0.95, meaning that they are nearly identical.

    Another indicator of a state's "size" for our purposes is the level of campaign expenditures by Republicans and Democrats. If spending is lower, gaining influence will be easier for us, whether we decide to form our own party, to work within an existing party, or to develop a non-partisan league that endorses candidates conforming to our positions in any party. The variable included here measures the greatest amount spent in any election cycle in the last 8 years: using the highest number rather than an average is appropriate because it indicates how much the political establishment could spend in a close and important election.

    Small geographical area might be better, all else equal, because it reduces driving distances. On the other hand, the amount of private land is itself a positive thing, because it means lower land prices and more "room to be free." Thus, both Area and Private Land variables are included in the tables below.

    Another crucial issue is viability. We need a state where a free economy and society will be viable. The two important criteria here are geography and dependence on the federal government. A state with a long coastline is more viable for two reasons: 1) it will make us less dependent on the U.S. economy and U.S. policy if we can trade with foreign countries; 2) our free-market policies will present more benefits in terms of economic growth if we have ports. Some would argue as well that a border with Canada is better than being completely locked within the United States. Others would argue that coastline or border would matter only for independence, not autonomy, and do not think geography is important for the FSP.

    Federal dependence is very important. Research indicates that regions that receive more from the central government in expenditures than they pay in taxes are less likely to seek fiscal autonomy or sovereignty. Regions that pay more than they get back are more likely to seek autonomy, because they have a genuine grievance against the central government. Having a state that is on net exploited by the central government would be a very important issue for us and would create a popular demand for real federalism. (It will also make it easier for us to reject federal funds when necessary.)

    Another aspect of viability that is occasionally mentioned is federal land ownership. More federal land ownership might mean an excuse for federal meddling in the state, but it could also mean a legitimate grievance for the state's citizens. From observing the politics of states like Idaho, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming, it seems possible that federal ownership of land is on balance a positive for us, because the issue is a burning one for voters.

    The native political culture could be just as important as size and viability. If we choose a state that is more oriented toward liberty, it will be easier for us to present our program as a natural continuation of the state's traditions. It will also make our relations with the state's citizens less conflictual. Finally, it will make life more pleasant for us as soon as we get there. There are diverse measures of a state's native culture, and perhaps even all of them put together do not give us the complete picture. Nevertheless, some criteria do seem important. State and local government spending is one indicator of freedom: governments that spend more (as a proportion of the economy) will be harder to cut down to the size we want. State and local taxes as a percentage of income is a slightly different but similar measure. These two measures can be together, but they are essentially measuring the same thing: the role of government in the economy. Generally, eastern states look better on these measures than western states. But the western states are traditionally known to have a strong culture of freedom. So we can try other measures to capture this: one is the percentage of the vote obtained by the Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian Party presidential candidates in the last election. Generally a vote for a conservative candidate in a presidential election is a vote for the free market, not necessarily a vote for right-wing ideology. The Western states generally come out well on this measure. Three other measures are gun control and homeschooling laws, and land-use regulations. These are not terribly important compared to the broader measures already mentioned, but they make a slight difference. The number of state and local government employees (as a percentage of the population) might be another good measure, though it's highly correlated with the spending and tax measures. The spreadsheet considers other "personal-freedom" measures, like seat-belt laws and anti-smoking regulations, which are excluded from the tables because of space.

    The final important category of criteria is quality of life. We all would prefer a state where we could earn more and live more happily. This category is necessarily quite subjective and is probably not as important as the other categories. One important objective measure is projected jobs growth, reported below. These projections are often far off, but they do give an idea of which states are likely to be better than others. Given the diverse nature of the FSP membership, a state with more jobs is definitely more attractive. Low crime rates, high per capita income (adjusted for cost of living), and possibly the "livability" ranking reported below are also presumably better for everyone. The state comparison matrix also allows you to rate urban, small-town, or rural states higher depending on your preference. Besides these measures, the state reports commissioned by the Research Committee will address the subjective components of "quality of life."

    SOURCE LINKS
    "Economy at a glance" tables for states and localities, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Occupational Projections by State, 1998-2008 (very useful!)
    Population from 2000 Census, pdf
    Historical votes for Libertarian presidential candidates by state
    Most Livable State rankings, 2002
    State by state government land ownership
    Campaign expenditures by state
    Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State
    State and Local Tax Burdens by State
    Economic Freedom Report 1999, pdf
    State Gun Laws
    Americans for Tax Reform: State Policy Maps
    State Marijuana Laws
    Dave Liep's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
    Historical Congressional Election Results by District and State
    Voter Registration by State and Party, 1994-2000
    Gross State Product
    Employment & Population Figures by State, from the Census
    Smallest Country Report Reference only, FSP is not considering other countries
    States allowing the sale of raw milk
    Homeschooling regulations by state
    Midwifery laws by state
    State constitutions
    Land-Use Planning Regulations by State
    State Complying and Not Complying with National ID Standards
    Liquor Laws by State
    Seat Belt Laws by State
    Helmet Laws by State
    Congressional Representatives' Votes on Spending Issues
    Obscenity Laws by State
    Gambling Laws by State
    Vaccination Laws by State
    Cost of Living Calculator
    Laws governing ammunition nationwide
    State gun laws: comprehensive summary
    Economic Freedom of North America
    Wealth Friendliness by State (downloadable spreadsheet)
    Industry Employment by State, current

    GENERAL DATA

    Pop=Population in 1000's, July 2002 Census estimate (lower is better, but highly correlated with "Vot")
    Area=Area in 1000s of square miles (smaller is better, taking "PLand" into account)
    Ins=% of state population born inside the state, from Census (lower might be better)
    Geo=Geography ("Coast" is best; "Locked" is worst)
    Vot=1000's of ballots cast in 2000 presidential election (lower numbers are better)
    Fin=total campaign funds raised by all US House & Senate candidates in most expensive election of last 8 years, in millions of $, from Political Money Line (lower numbers are better)
    Blm=% of state's territory owned by federal government (higher numbers probably better)
    PLand= amount of private and locally owned land (not state or federal), in millions of square miles (higher numbers better)
    Liv=Livability rating, 2003, from Morgan Quitno Press (higher numbers are supposed to be better - but the factors that go into the rating are sometimes dubious)
    Crm=violent and property crimes per hundred thousand residents, 2001, from the FBI (lower numbers are better)
    UrbA=population in urbanized areas as % of total population, 2000 Census (lower numbers probably better)
    UrbC=population in urban clusters as % of total population, 2000 Census (urban clusters are densely populated small towns)

    State Pop Area Ins Geo Vot Fin Blm PLand Liv Crm UrbA UrbC
    Wyoming 499 97105 42.5 Locked 213 4.7 45.9 42.782 28.81 3518 25.5 39.8
    Alaska 644 570374 38.1 Isolated 288 6.1 67 23.77 23.88 4236 44.3 21.4
    North Dakota 634 68994 72.5 Canada 290 4.2 3.9 62.684 28.02 2418 35.8 20.0
    Vermont 617 9249 54.3 Canada 291 4.3 6.4 7.791 29.95 2769 17.3 20.9
    South Dakota 761 75898 68.1 Locked 316 18.8 6.3 69.186 29.79 2332 25.8 26.2
    Delaware 807 1955 48.3 Coast 328 8.7 2 1.812 26.79 4053 67.8 12.2
    Montana 909 145556 56.1 Canada 411 10.9 28.8 91.01 26.23 3689 25.9 28.1
    Idaho 1341 82751 47.2 Canada 488 7.7 62.7 24.52 26.44 3133 46.7 19.7
    New Hampshire 1275 8969 43.3 Coast 567 19.6 12.8 7.36 30.81 2322 44.6 14.6
    Maine 1294 30865 67.3 Coast 647 11.8 1 29.103 28.07 2688 24.6 15.6

    ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DATA

    Gov1=Federal, state, and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product, 2000 (lower numbers are better, but double counts both Gov2 and Dep)
    Gov2=State and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product, 2000 (lower numbers are better)
    Inc=Median household income in $1000s - 2000 Census (higher is better)
    Dep=$ this state gets back in federal expenditures for every $1 paid in federal taxes, 2002 (lower is better)
    Tax=State and local taxes (all sources) as a percentage of income, 2003 (lower is better)
    EFNA=Economic Freedom of North America, 2000 (higher numbers are better)
    Job=1000's of new jobs forecast, 2000-2010 (higher is better: asterisk [*] indicates that data for that state are for 1998-2008, the new data not yet being available)
    Land=lack of statewide land planning schemes, 10-point scale (higher is better)
    Pres=sum of vote percentages for Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution presidential candidates in last election (higher numbers are probably better)
    Gun=level of gun freedom, compiled from this source (and adjusted for ME and MT) by the Research Committee (higher numbers are better)
    Gov3=Percentage of state workforce employed by state and local governments, July 2003, from BLS, not seasonally adjusted (lower numbers are better)
    NEA=Percentage of state population in the National Education Association or American Federation of Teachers, from http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm (lower numbers are better)

    State Gov1 Gov2 Inc Dep Tax EFNA Job Land Pres Gun Gov3 NEA
    Wyoming 13.4 9.4 37.9 1.06 8.5 7.3 36.3 10 69.9 9.7 19.8 1.16
    Alaska 19.1 9.7 51.6 1.91 5.5 6.1 47.80 10 59.8 11 19.1 2.15
    N. Dakota 14.4 9.1 34.6 2.07 9.8 6.3 34.3(*) 10 61.0 8.7 16.8 1.41
    Vermont 13.0 9.7 40.9 1.13 10.1 6.8 34.4 0 41.4 10.5 12.3 1.46
    S. Dakota 12.7 8.3 35.3 1.61 8.5 8.1 61.6 10 60.8 7.5 15.3 0.86
    Delaware 9.2 6.9 47.4 .85 7.3 8.4 61.6 0 42.2 7 11.5 1.16
    Montana 16.5 10.8 33.0 1.67 9.1 6.2 92.5 10 59.1 9.7 16.0 1.57
    Idaho 13.1 9.5 37.6 1.31 10.2 6.7 158.7 6.7 68.2 9.7 15.8 0.84
    N. Hampshire 7.7 6.2 49.5 .66 6.6 8 109.4 3.3 48.6 10 11.4 0.84
    Maine 14.1 9.8 37.2 1.34 12.2 6.3 56.4 3.3 44.5 9.7 12.6 1.42

    Rankings

    This section ranks the states according to the above variables ("1" is best). The variables are treated roughly in order of importance, though of course this is an area in which opinions will differ. We have recently created a spreadsheet that allows you to weight each variable according to your own preference and come up with an overall ranking of states! The spreadsheet requires a recent version of Microsoft Excel and you can download it here. The spreadsheet file contains instructions for its own use. If you don't like spreadsheets, there's also an easier (but now fairly outdated) Javascript version, which you can use on your browser! Click here to try it out.

    Low Number of Voters ("Vot" variable)

    1. Wyoming
    2. Alaska
    3. North Dakota
    4. Vermont
    5. South Dakota
    6. Delaware
    7. Montana
    8. Idaho
    9. New Hampshire
    10. Maine

    Low Federal Dependence ("Dep" variable)

    1. New Hampshire
    2. Delaware
    3. Vermont
    4. Wyoming
    5. Idaho
    6. Maine
    7. South Dakota
    8. Alaska
    9. Montana
    10. North Dakota

    Strong Projected Jobs Growth ("Job" variable)

    1. Idaho
    2. New Hampshire
    3. Montana
    4. Delaware, South Dakota
    6. Maine
    7. Alaska
    8. Wyoming
    9. Vermont
    10. North Dakota

    Geography ("Geo" variable)

    1. Coastal access: Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine
    4. Coastal but isolated: Alaska
    5. Canadian border only: North Dakota, Vermont, Montana, Idaho
    9. Landlocked inside the U.S.: Wyoming, South Dakota

    Low Campaign Expenditures ("Fin" variable)

    1. North Dakota
    2. Vermont
    3. Wyoming
    4. Alaska
    5. Idaho
    6. Delaware
    7. Montana
    8. Maine
    9. South Dakota
    10. New Hampshire

    High Votes for Conservative and Libertarian Presidential Candidates ("Pres" variable)

    1. Wyoming
    2. Idaho
    3. North Dakota
    4. South Dakota
    5. Alaska
    6. Montana
    7. New Hampshire
    8. Maine
    9. Delaware
    10. Vermont

    Low State and Local Taxes ("Tax" variable)

    1. Alaska
    2. New Hampshire
    3. Delaware
    4. South Dakota, Wyoming (tie)
    6. Montana
    7. North Dakota
    8. Vermont
    9. Idaho
    10. Maine

    Lack of Statewide Land-Use Planning ("Land" variable)

    1. Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana
    6. Idaho
    7. New Hampshire, Maine
    9. Vermont, Delaware

    Low Crime Rates ("Crm" variable)

    1. New Hampshire
    2. South Dakota
    3. North Dakota
    4. Maine
    5. Vermont
    6. Idaho
    7. Wyoming
    8. Montana
    9. Delaware
    10. Alaska

    More Gun Freedom ("Gun" variable)

    1. Alaska
    2. Vermont
    3. New Hampshire
    4. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana
    7. Maine
    8. North Dakota
    9. South Dakota
    10. Delaware

    Smaller State & Local Government Sector ("Gov2" variable)

    1. New Hampshire
    2. Delaware
    3. South Dakota
    4. North Dakota
    5. Wyoming
    6. Idaho
    7. Alaska, Vermont
    9. Maine
    10. Montana

    Low Level of City Urbanization ("UrbA" variable)

    1. Vermont
    2. Maine
    3. Wyoming
    4. South Dakota
    5. Montana
    6. North Dakota
    7. Alaska
    8. New Hampshire
    9. Idaho
    10. Delaware

    Livability Ranking ("Liv" variable)

    1. New Hampshire
    2. Wyoming
    3. South Dakota
    4. Maine
    5. North Dakota
    6. Vermont
    7. Delaware
    8. Idaho
    9. Alaska
    10. Montana

    Low Percentage of Residents Born in State ("Ins" variable)

    1. Alaska
    2. Wyoming
    3. New Hampshire
    4. Idaho
    5. Delaware
    6. Vermont
    7. Montana
    8. Maine
    9. South Dakota
    10. North Dakota

    Low Percentage of Government Employees ("Gov3" variable)

    1. Delaware
    2. New Hampshire
    3. Maine
    4. Idaho
    5. Vermont
    6. Montana
    7. South Dakota
    8. Alaska
    9. North Dakota
    10. Wyoming

    Low Percentage of NEA/AFT Members ("NEA" variable)

    1. Idaho, New Hampshire (tie)
    3. South Dakota
    4. Wyoming, Delaware (tie)
    6. North Dakota
    7. Maine
    8. Vermont
    9. Montana
    10. Alaska

    More Economic Freedom ("EFNA" variable)

    1. Delaware
    2. South Dakota
    3. New Hampshire
    4. Wyoming
    5. Vermont
    6. Idaho
    7. Maine, North Dakota (tie)
    9. Montana
    10. Alaska

    More Private and Locally Owned Land ("PLand" variable)

    1. Montana
    2. South Dakota
    3. North Dakota
    4. Wyoming
    5. Idaho
    6. Maine
    7. Alaska
    8. Vermont
    9. New Hampshire
    10. Delaware