Free State Project vote set for August
by Nadia White • Star-Tribune staff writer • 07/08/03
Liberty-minded activists will choose which sparsely-populated state will be the
focus of their collective political might in a vote beginning in August.
Members of the Free State Project will have until Sept. 8 to vote on which of
10 states they would like to move to in order to advocate for limited
government. Wyoming and New Hampshire are top contenders in the effort.
The Free State Project is an effort to sign up 20,000 advocates of limited
government to move to a single state in which they can incrementally reduce the
reach of government. That effort passed the 4,000-member mark earlier in June,
prompting organizers to set a vote date.
The deadline to sign up to participate in the vote is Aug. 15, by which time
the FSP should have more than 5,000 members, according to the group's
projections. The deadline for members to return their ballots is Sept. 8, and
the selected state will be announced on Sept. 15, according to a press release
from Jason Sorens, the Yale University doctoral student who founded and leads
the effort.
Tom Parker, a Louisville, Colo., resident who serves as the group's liaison to
Wyoming, said the movement is a reaction to the current government climate.
"In terms of liberty, we see things drifting away with the latest moves like
the USA Patriot Act, and the various wars, now Liberia, we feel our government
is not playing by the rules of the Constitution so we're hoping to change
things," Parker said. "By concentrating our numbers in one state we're hoping
to have more influence and move things more toward liberty."
Eligible voters will be able to choose from among Alaska, Delaware, Idaho,
Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming. Once the group reaches 20,000 commitments, members have five years in
which to move to the chosen state. Some members have already indicated that
they will move as soon as the state is chosen, Parker said.
Dennis Brossman, a Wyoming Libertarian, said the project is very appealing.
" I am tempted by the project even if Alaska or Vermont were to try it. I
prefer Wyoming, the climate and terrain and being in the heart of the 48
states, but the freedom experiment is very alluring to me," Brossman said. "
I'd be willing to move to Alaska."
Brossman said the idea of newcomers changing the way things are done in Wyoming
is nothing new.
"I think it's done in other realms, but not so openly and honestly," he said.
"For example, in Lander and Jackson in the last 10, 15 years, we've had a large
number of environmentalists move in and they heavily affect the policy in these
areas."
He said he thinks the plan has a shot: "I think it's something that would be
workable and doable. I don't think it's a pipe dream."
The Free State Project posts additional information on its Web site, (http://www.freestateproject.org).
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
The Grand Western Conference Report
By Ben F. Irvin • 05/27/03
The most significant libertarian event of the year has just concluded in
Missoula, Montana (May 24 and 25). Almost two hundred freedom seekers from
around the nation and Alberta attended.
Fantastic presentations were given by the main presenters: J.J. Johnson, Nancy
Johnson, Senator Jerry O'Neil, Jason Sorens, Vin Suprynowicz, and Claire Wolfe.
All the presenters, save Jason (being neutral) agreed that liberty has the best
chance surviving and expanding in the West. A couple of the main speakers
indicated that freedom as sought by the FSP can only be procured in the West. A
consistent point emphasized by the speakers was the idea that liberty needs
elbow room to expand, and that the tiny Seaboarder states lack both the space
and motivation for freedom to flourish. Jason seemed impressed by the
attendance and enthusiasm of the gathered.
The Missoulian (Montana's second largest newspaper) and the Missoula
Independent covered the event. The Montana Television Network and KPVI
television from Pocatello, Idaho videoed parts of the event (video tapes were
made of all activities by the MTLP).
State panel discussions were given by Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming.
In the final session on Sunday, the four Western state panels answered
questions by participants. To demonstrate Instant Runoff Voting (another type
of ranked choice voting called "Condorset's Method" will be used to select the
free state), all porcupines (that's what FSP folks call themselves) were asked
to gather around the table of the state they desire to be the free state. In
the first round, South Dakota was eliminated and its supporters were asked to
select their second choice. In the second round, Wyoming ended up with the
short stick. A third round was not done as even if all of Wyoming's supporters
moved to the Idaho table, Montana still had a majority. Indeed, Montana almost
had a majority in the first round. It was observed that all of the presenters,
save one (who was in the lobby in deep discussion) voted for Montana.
It was difficult to get many of the GWC participants motel/hotel rooms;
however, most finally got accommodations. Nearly a dozen porcupines camped out.
Most camped on Gary Marbut's ranch just a few miles north of Missoula. Gary was
nice enough to provide free lodging for Jason. Both Gary and I supplied
transportation for Jason.
A surprise at the GWC (Montana's winning was expected) was the six or seven
Albertans that drove down to attend. Jim Turnbull explained in informal
gatherings the Alberta plan for independence and liberty. It seemed to most
that the Albertan political philosophy was compatible with that of most
porcupines. Towards the end of the GWC three young Albertans told the Montana
table that they intended to move to Montana regardless of which state becomes
the free state and whether or not Alberta gains independence.
It took the work and effort of many people to make the GWC the libertarian
event of the year. Special appreciation should be given to Mike Fellows (MTLP
Chair), Gary Marbut, Andy Lochridge, and Mykl Meagher. Numerous others, too
many to list, contributed heavily to the success of the Grand Western
Conference.
I should also mention that my youngest son and I did manage to get Jason away
from Missoula just long enough to see the National Bison Range and a panoramic
view of the Mission Mountains and Flathead Valley.
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
Local Groups
• To find your Local Group, click on your location in the map below!
• Want to learn how help your Local Group become better?
Go Where They Want Your Business
by Taylor George
One guaranteed quality of South Dakota is her commitment to a
business-friendly atmosphere. This commitment is not something South Dakota is
shy about. Just consider one of several media campaigns that are broadcast
daily into the larger radio airwaves of Minneapolis by the Sioux Falls
Development Foundation. Go here to read what they are saying: www.siouxfallsdevelopment.com.
Pay particular attention to the vast amount of research which compares taxes
and expenditures by state, and concludes that Sioux Falls, SD is one of the
best places to do business.
The Sioux Falls Development Foundation conducts daily assaults on the high
taxes of the state of MN. These campaigns boast of the fact that South Dakota
has no state corporate income tax, no personal property tax, and no state
personal income tax. They also provide convincing evidence that doing business
in South Dakota can save your business at least $1 million off the bottom line
(100-person company). The advertisements also boast of special
business-friendly tax breaks that the city of Sioux Falls has enacted for
companies relocating to the area, such as significantly reduced commercial
property tax for up to 5 years.
The Small Business Survival Committee, a D.C. based small business advocacy
group agrees:
| Rank |
State |
SBSI Score |
| 1 |
Nevada |
27.060 |
| 2 |
South Dakota |
28.250 |
| 3 |
Washington |
32.010 |
| 4 |
Wyoming |
32.150 |
| 5 |
Florida |
33.180 |
| 6 |
Texas |
34.250 |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
36.250 |
| 8 |
Alabama |
36.830 |
| 9 |
Mississippi |
38.160 |
| 10 |
Tennessee |
39.540 |
With an outstanding 2nd place ranking, South Dakota is one of the
friendliest business atmospheres in the nation. The ranking is based on taxes,
electricity costs, workers' compensation costs, total crime rate, right to
work, number of bureaucrats, and state minimum wage. You can read more about
these rankings at:
www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/115.asp
Economy
During the recession of the past couple years, South Dakota banks assets as
well as savings and loan assets have increased significantly. For example, in
Sioux Falls alone, bank assets rose from $29 billion in 2000 to $43 billion in
2001. In 2001, the city of Sioux Falls had $322 million of new construction;
nearly $130 million of that was non-residential.
Landscape
South Dakota offers the FSP more than a bustling urban community. South Dakota
contains the Black Hills, along with Mount Rushmore. For pictures go here: www.theblackhills.com.
These are the fabled Black Hills of South Dakota, an oasis of pine-clad
mountains on the Great Plains. The Black Hills offer everything you expect from
a mountain vacation: five national parks, scenic drives, waterfalls, abundant
wildlife, acclaimed recreation trails and trout fishing. A place where bison
and wild horses still roam free. – South Dakota Vacation Guide
If you're wondering whether the Black Hills are as grandiose as some of the
mountains in Colorado or Wyoming, don't. They're not as big, but they offer
the state a decent amount of tourism, and an interesting landscape compared to
the rest of the state, which is mostly flat.
Politics
Bob Newland, the Libertarian candidate for Attorney General in the 2002
election, received 12,131 votes. This is interesting for the FSP because it
introduces a few questions. Why did Bob Newland receive 12,131 votes, while
all other statewide Libertarian candidates received less than a tenth of that
amount? Are these 12,131 voters libertarians, or did they just dislike the
other two candidates?
One reason is that Newland was at the center of two major referendums on the
ballot last fall. One measure would have legalized the growth and cultivation
of hemp with less than one percent THC. The other was a measure called
"Constitutional Amendment A." The latter received fair amounts of national
exposure and would have made it possible for the accused to argue the validity
and applicability of laws in South Dakota courts. Unfortunately these measures
failed, but Newland did his best to promote them and in doing so may have
garnered higher name recognition among libertarian voters.
To read more about efforts in South Dakota for Amendment A go here:
www.commonsensejustice.us. Of
particular interest are the county-by-county voting results and the analysis
about why the measure failed.
To read more about efforts in South Dakota for legalized hemp go here:
www.sodakhemp.org
One problem the FSP may encounter is the possibility of voter fraud within the
Democratic Party of South Dakota. South Dakota does not require a photo ID to
register to vote, and absentee ballots can be obtained without personal
appearance. National Review Online also reports that the South Dakota
Democratic Party was paying $3-per-head bounties for voter-registration cards.
It goes without saying that some voters were receiving more than $3. It
certainly is strange that South Dakota has 48% Republican voter registration
and has two Democrats for senators.
These political games are particularly bad for the FSP because we know that the
media will not afford our project dirty politics, as they will the Democrats.
The FSP will have to play a cleaner game given the fact that most media outlets
will be unsympathetic toward our cause. We already have conservative talk
radio hosts like Michael Medved telling lies about the FSP. Just think what
liberals are going to write who are much less sympathetic about reducing the
overall size of government.
The FSP must also take into account the large Indian Reservations in South
Dakota. The FSP should not take lightly the fact that Indian Reservations
depend heavily upon the federal government. This dependence could bring
resistance to many of the rights we would propose for all of South Dakota's
citizens, including legalized gambling.
On the other hand, the Indians could turn out to help the FSP. County voting
results on "Amendment A" show that the Indians supported the measure (see
county voting result from above links). The Indians also showed major support
for the effort to legalize hemp. In addition to these factors there is
speculation that the Indian population in South Dakota is tired of being
treated like children by the federal government. This may all mean that in
reality the Indians may support our cause more than we would have realized. If
those in the FSP can embrace the Indian culture and prove to them that we care
about their liberties as well as our own, we could cultivate a lasting
friendship.
Another factor for South Dakota is that politics is becoming slightly expensive
for a lower population state. According to the Associated Press, $5 million
was spent in the primary races for the 2002 federal elections, and most of it
by unsuccessful candidates (Joe Kafka, AP, 10/31/2002). AP also reports that
campaign spending for governor in South Dakota was in excess of $7 million,
breaking the old record of $2.8 million set in 1994. This new trend is
probably due to the tightly held senate race between Thune and Johnson which
brought a lot of outside money.
South Dakota is a predominantly Republican state, as evidenced by the state
legislature. The South Dakota House of Representatives holds 49 Republicans
and 21 Democrats, but the Reservations remain the wildcard of South Dakota
politics, one just can't be sure how they would respond to reducing the size of
state government. For the purposes of the FSP the Reservations would have
little to do with early success; later on, however, when the FSP decides to run
a candidate for governor, Indian support could become more important. South
Dakota is a state that is eager for new business, and it is a state with some
disdain for big government, but probably not the level of disdain held in Idaho
or Montana.
The greatest asset South Dakota offers the FSP is balance. South Dakota is
small enough for our efforts to succeed, yet big enough for us to have a job,
or start a small business.
South Dakota Advantages
by Crystal Bogue
As a general rule, most people dedicated to the FSP think that states such
as New Hampshire or Wyoming will win this race. Granted those two seem like
the place to be for one reason or another and both rank considerably high on
the scale of being more "libertarian" than the other eight. Depending on the
poll and the reason for it, South Dakota always seems to fall in the middle.
Never number one but never number ten either. Let's consider what South Dakota
has to offer in relation to the other states and what makes it the best
candidate for success in this "free state race."
South Dakota has taken it upon itself to prove that states don't need income
tax from the people. It is interesting because there are VERY few states that
believe this. This is not to say that SD doesn't have taxes. All the states
of taxes in some form or another. When considering the sales tax of the
states, SD only has a 4% tax on all items. This percentage is relatively low
when considering other states.
Cost of living is another factor. South Dakota is among the bottom
percentage of cost of living which contributes to the ability of the people to
stay in business. This lower cost of living coupled with a growing economy
only spells success for the state in more ways than one. Sioux Falls is home
to many large corporation businesses because there is no corporate tax in this
state. It is interesting to note that more and more companies are moving here
from other states to take advantage of this tax break. With an increase in big
business, little businesses can only benefit. Construction of new homes and
new factories is driving the premium cost of land in Sioux Falls up very
quickly. Even though Sioux Falls is a city of about 100,000, it has been noted
that it is one of the top three cities of that size that are showing a high
rate of growth while keeping unemployment at an all time low of only 2.9%.
Rural living is a majority in South Dakota but Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and
Aberdeen are all relatively large towns that offer the many things that
individuals enjoy about big cities.
The right to keep and bear arms is a big issue for a considerable amount of
people involved in this project. Even though Alaska ranks as number one for
their gun laws, South Dakota hasn't ever had a law that made carrying a pistol
a financial burden. It is VERY economical and convenient to apply and receive
a concealed carry permit in South Dakota. If it were any more economical, it
would be a mimic of Alaska and be no cost at all. It is important to note that
South Dakota believes that the owner of a firearm is responsible for that
firearm and NOT the manufacturers or sellers of such items.
This porridge is not too hot nor too cold, but just right. Because of this
middle of the road outlook and position, South Dakota is best placed at the top
of the FSP list simply because once South Dakota is picked and changes for the
betterment of the living conditions and political outlook is made, North Dakota
won't be far behind in making the same changes. This factor is very important
in the choice of which state should be THE Free State. Within months, North
Dakota would join the trend of South Dakota's success as it has done so many
times before. Not too cold, not too hot, but just right.
Analysis of Presidential Elections
in the 10 Candidate States
In Tennyson's report Analyzing the Freedom
Orientation of Existing State Populations, he analysed the results of the
2000 presidential election and what it means to the FSP and its members. The
gist of that report is in this table:
Voter Predisposition to Vote for Small-government Candidates
(2000 Presidential Election)
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Wyoming |
151% |
| 2 |
Idaho |
141% |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
73% |
| 4 |
Alaska |
70% |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
66% |
| 6 |
Montana |
53% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
-3% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
-35% |
| 9 |
Maine |
-21% |
| 10 |
Vermont |
-37% |
Source: Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of
Existing State Populations
By looking at the 2000 election, we see that Wyoming and
Idaho come out far above all of the other candidate states. However, one
election is just that – one election, and cannot be considered the whole
picture.
Nine most recent presidential elections
Here is the data from the nine most recent presidential elections: 2000 –
1968. This data presents a more complete picture of all recent Presidential
elections.
|
2000 |
1996 |
1992 |
1988 |
1984 |
1980 |
1976 |
1972 |
1968 |
| State |
Candidate |
% |
Candidate |
% |
Candidate |
% |
Cand. |
Cand. |
Cand. |
Candidate |
% |
Cand. |
Candidate |
% |
| AK |
Bush (R) |
58.6 |
Dole (R) |
50.8 |
Bush (R) |
39.5 |
Bush
(R) |
Reagan
(R) |
Reagan
(R) |
Ford (R) |
|
Nixon
(R) |
Nixon (R) |
|
| DE |
Gore (D) |
55.0 |
Clinton (D) |
51.8 |
Clinton (D) |
43.5 |
Carter (D) |
52.0 |
| ID |
Bush (R) |
61.2 |
Dole (R) |
52.2 |
Bush (R) |
42.0 |
Ford (R) |
|
| ND |
Bush (R) |
60.7 |
Dole (R) |
46.9 |
Bush (R) |
44.2 |
| NH |
Bush (R) |
48.1 |
Clinton (D) |
49.3 |
Clinton (D) |
38.9 |
| ME |
Gore (D) |
49.1 |
Clinton (D) |
51.6 |
Clinton (D) |
38.81 |
Humphrey (D) |
55.3 |
| MT |
Bush (R) |
58.4 |
Dole (R) |
44.1 |
Clinton (D) |
37.6 |
Nixon (R) |
|
| SD |
Bush (R) |
60.3 |
Dole (R) |
46.5 |
Bush (R) |
40.7 |
| VT |
Gore (D) |
50.6 |
Clinton (D) |
53.3 |
Clinton (D) |
46.1 |
| WY |
Bush (R) |
67.8 |
Dole (R) |
49.8 |
Bush (R) |
39.5 |
1 Ross Perot beat George Bush in Maine with 30.44% to 30.39% of the
popular vote.
Sources:
www.multied.com/elections and
www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html
(Note: I stopped doing research at the 1968 election because in the
1964, 1960, and 1956 elections, most of the candidate states voted for the same
candidate and because the farther back you go, the less representative the data
is to the reality of today. Even in the 1970s and 1980s most of the candidate
states voted for the same candidate. Before 1956, well, most current Americans
were not even alive or at the very least, not even voting back then.)
Republican Totals
The Republican presidential candidates from 1968 to 2000 generally sold
themselves as, or were perceived as, or pretended to be, more pro-small
government than the Democratic Party presidential candidates. Generally
this is the case and is clearly evident by the specific campaign literature and
ads of the above presidential candidates.
So we can rank the states by the
number of Republican presidential candidates that won their state elections:
Amount for Republicans from 1968 to 2000
| Rank |
State |
GOPs
Won |
| 1 |
Alaska |
9 |
| Wyoming |
9 |
| North Dakota |
9 |
| South Dakota |
9 |
| Idaho |
9 |
| 6 |
Montana |
8 |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
7 |
| 8 |
Vermont |
6 |
| 9 |
Delaware |
5 |
| Maine |
5 |
Reagan and Goldwater
What about races where a candidate from a major party ran on downsizing
the federal government?
This has occured twice in somewhat recent times. In 1980 Ronald Reagan (R) ran
for president and in 1964 Barry Goldwater (R) ran for president. Both times,
their major issue was Downsizing DC. Reagan communicated the message better and
won the 1980 election while Goldwater lost his election.
According to Harry Browne and many others, the media even tried to portray
Reagan as more libertarian than he was. Ronald Reagan did not act as a
libertarian once in office, but that is how he ran for his first
election.
(Note: Votes for the LP candidate, Ed Clark, are included with Reagan's,
because Reagan used many of Clark's ideas and this is the best election ever
for an LP candidate.)
1980 Election - Vote for Ronald Reagan
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
68.4% |
| 2 |
Alaska |
66.0%2 |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
65.5% |
| 4 |
Wyoming |
65.2% |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
61.7% |
| 6 |
Montana |
59.5% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
58.2% |
| Entire U.S. |
51.8% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
48.0% |
| 9 |
Maine |
46.6% |
| 10 |
Vermont |
45.3% |
2 Ed Clark got 11.7% of the 66.0% total.
(He got < 3% in all the other FSP candidate states)
Source:
www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html
Barry Goldwater only had the opportunity to run for office because the
paleo-conservative and the libertarian Republicans were able to take over the
Republican Party primary and hand the nomination to Barry Goldwater. The
national GOP did not even support his bid for president after he was nominated.
All records show that Barry Goldwater was set on dramatically reducing the size
of government and those in change of the GOP wanted nothing to do with him or
such ideas.
1964 Election - Vote for Barry Goldwater
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
49.1% |
| 2 |
South Dakota |
44.4% |
| 3 |
Wyoming |
43.4% |
| 4 |
North Dakota |
41.9% |
| 5 |
Montana |
40.6% |
| 6 |
Delaware |
38.8% |
| Entire U.S. |
38.5% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
36.1% |
| 8 |
Alaska |
34.1% |
| 9 |
Vermont |
33.7% |
| 10 |
Maine |
31.2% |
Source:
www.multied.com/elections/1964state.html
Average of Reagan and Goldwater elections
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
58.7% |
| 2 |
Wyoming |
54.3% |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
53.6% |
| 4 |
South Dakota |
53.1% |
| 5 |
Alaska |
50.1% |
| 5 |
Montana |
50.1% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
47.2% |
| Entire U.S. |
45.1% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
43.4% |
| 9 |
Vermont |
39.5% |
| 10 |
Maine |
38.9% |
Conclusions
I computed this table by averaging the "Amount of Republicans from 1968 to
2000" and "Average of Reagan and Goldwater elections" rankings:
Total Average Ranking According to this Report
| 1 |
Idaho |
| 2 |
Wyoming |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
| 4 |
South Dakota |
| 5 |
Alaska |
| 6 |
Montana |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
| 8 |
Delaware |
| Vermont |
| 10 |
Maine |
Now that we have the whole picture, let's compare it to just the 2000
presidential election:
State Rankings
| Rank |
Tennyson 2000
Report |
This Report |
| 1 |
Wyoming |
Idaho |
| 2 |
Idaho |
Wyoming |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
| 4 |
Alaska |
South Dakota |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
Alaska |
| 6 |
Montana |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
| 8 |
Delaware |
| 9 |
Maine |
Vermont |
| 10 |
Vermont |
Maine |
Amazingly, they are very similar, almost eerily similar. Maybe I was wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, the 2000 presidential election really does provide us with a
very good look at the ideology of the candidate states. None of the candidate
states move more than ONE position in the state ranking.
Whatever the conclusion, one thing is for sure: Time and time again, both
Idaho and Wyoming stand out in the above rankings.
Participants
in New Hampshire
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
LinkedIn