Organization Center

New Hampshire Report 4: Examining Population and Political Accessibility

Examining Population and Political Accessibility

By Keith Murphy
Baltimore, MD

The author has directly managed nine campaigns for state legislative office in Maryland, resulting in six victories. In addition, he has consulted for numerous local races in Baltimore City. These services have included all aspects of campaign management, from analyzing district demographics and voter files to fundraising to production of literature and signs to organizing volunteers and door-to-door. He is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put this experience to work for those who share his political viewpoints, in the free state.

Introduction

Boosters of small population states, such as Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, and Delaware, will be happy to tell you that the population factor is crucial to the success of the project. It is a cornerstone of the FSP.

But why? Why does population matter?

The typical answer is that the more people are in a given state, the more difficult it will be to reach a required saturation point, a tipping point, in order to achieve the political power it will take to put the state on a course to liberty. Thus, small-state boosters claim, 20,000 activists in New Hampshire are equivalent to only 7,500 in Wyoming.

This is an extremely simplistic way of measuring the states against each other, and could lead to an uninformed vote. It assumes that all other things are equal. But the states are not equal, and there are real and distinct differences between them. For example, isn't it logical that population is only a concern to the degree that the native population leans against us? Would the FSP have a better chance in a state with low taxes and a live-and-let-live attitude, with a population of a million, or in a state of 600,000 with high taxes and onerous infringements on personal liberty? While there inarguably is not yet a fully libertarian state, some are clearly closer to the ideal than others. The closer a state comes to that ideal, the more irrelevant the population factor becomes. This is why members spend so much time weighing and arguing about tax rates, gun laws, drug arrests, and other rough indicators of a state's "libertarian-ness."

But when considering the impact of population on the state choice, there may be another factor that's even more important than political culture. From the FSP site:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government.

Even more than population, this whole project is dependent on the accessibility of the political system of the chosen state! Even if the given state has a small population, and leans libertarian politically, if the doors to power are closed to us by stifling election laws, all of our efforts will have been in vain. Many of these election laws are directly related to the population issue.

  • Each state has different district sizes for their legislature.
  • Some states allow multi-member districts, and some do not.
  • Some have fusion, and some do not.
  • Some have nonpartisan local races, and some do not.
  • The ballot access requirement varies widely from one state to the next.
  • From a logistical viewpoint, campaigns are more difficult in some states than others, due to geographic features.
  • The form of local government is very different from state to state.
  • Finally, one state offers an executive council.

A brief overview of these features is provided here.

District Size

Population is only relevant to the state-choice issue for the effect that it has upon our ability to influence the political reality of the chosen state. But each state has very different systems, producing varying districts of very different sizes. District size for each office is one of the key components of understanding the relevance of population, as it provides some measure of the work to be done to begin to take power from the existing political structure.

Even if you ignore differences in political culture, the overall population number is only relevant for those select offices that have the entire state as its district. For example, if you assume that Wyoming and New Hampshire are equally libertarian, then it should be easier to win the governorship of Wyoming than that of New Hampshire, as the number of votes required is substantially less. The same would apply to other statewide offices, such as state's attorney, treasurer, etc. Given the tremendous undertaking of running a credible campaign for these statewide offices, in any of the ten states, it is inevitable that our initial efforts will be concentrated on offices with many less constituents, such as state legislative office and local offices.

The district size is (per the US Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Baker v. Carr) decided by dividing the state's population by the number of seats. This gives the "ideal" district size. Every ten years, following the census, state legislators pore over voter demographic data, and (being careful to include their major campaign contributors in their district and making it as hard as possible for opposing parties) redraw the district lines to account for shifts in population. Each district must be within 5% of the ideal district size, a measure the Supreme Court apparently found under the sofa cushions. As noted above, in general it is true that the smaller the district size the easier it is to win, as the fewer voters that must be courted to achieve victory. The smallest house districts in the nation can be found in New Hampshire, beginning at 2,987 citizens. Vermont comes in next, with 4,059 citizens for its single-member districts. Wyoming can boast the smallest uniform districts, with an ideal district population of 8,230.

State Legislative Districts

StateIdeal
House		 Multi-
Member		Ideal
Senate
Alaska15,673 No 31,346
Delaware19,112 No 37,314
Idaho36,962 Yes 36,962
Maine8,443 No 36,426
Montana9,022 No 18,044
New Hampshire3,089 Yes51,491
North Dakota13,106 Yes13,106
South Dakota21,567 Yes21,567
Vermont4,059 Yes 20,294
Wyoming8,230No 16,460

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member districts. Vermont has a mix of single-member and two-member districts. New Hampshire is a peculiar case, because of a state constitutional provision that prohibits splitting towns without their permission. This results in multi-member districts of varying size, as detailed below.

Multi-Member Districts

Multi-member districts may be "at large", meaning that all members represent all constituents, or they may be broken into sub-districts. Multi-member districts that are broken into sub-districts (A, B, etc.) usually cover large geographic areas, the given rationale usually being that legislators should live reasonably close to their constituents. Sub-districts usually operate just like single-member districts, in that constituents go into the booth and cast just one vote for that office. In comparison, in at-large districts voters go into the booth and cast as many votes as there are seats. Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member house districts, some of which are broken into sub-districts and some of which are not. In New England, the unit of political power is not counties but towns, and districts are drawn in such as way so as to avoid splitting towns wherever possible. The New Hampshire Constitution actually forbids splitting towns without their concurrence, resulting in a wide variety of district sizes. Where Vermont's house consists entirely of one-member and two-member districts, New Hampshire's house districts each have between one and fourteen seats, with the majority of districts having between three and five seats. New Hampshire and Vermont have no sub-districts, as do some of the larger western states.

The practical effect of at-large multi-member districts is that voters get as many votes as there are seats. The major parties sometimes have difficulty finding candidates to run for all the seats in a large district, and it is easy to court the "extra" votes of a constituent. If a Republican has ten votes, and only has eight Republicans to vote for, he is much more likely to give one or both of his extra votes to a Libertarian than a Democrat. Of course, the same is true of a Democrat. Party loyalists are much more likely to vote for a third-party member than they are for "that other party." For example, in 2002 the Wyoming LP ran Marie Brossman for Secretary of State against an incumbent Republican. The Democrats did not field a candidate. It was a brilliant move that paid off handsomely, as Ms. Brossman received 17% of the vote and gave the LP major party status in Wyoming until 2006.

Those states with at-large multi-member districts offer an electoral advantage over those that don't. New Hampshire – with its wide variety of district sizes, offering constituents up to 14 votes each – is particularly attractive in this category.

Fusion

Fusion allows a candidate to run for office under two or more parties simultaneously. In the nineteenth century, fusion was a regular occurrence throughout the nation, but it was such an opportunity for third parties that the major parties worked in concert to ban it in most states. Of the ten candidate states, it is only possible (with slight variances in application) in Vermont, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, South Dakota, and New Hampshire. Of these six states, it would appear that fusion only regularly occurs in Vermont and New Hampshire. The other states could require an attorney general's opinion and a court case to establish a modern precedent, and the first successful use of fusion could trigger a belated effort by the major two parties to ban it.

When a third-party candidate runs under a major party banner, several important things are accomplished. First, the major party includes the nominee on all campaign literature, effectively paying to get the third-party's word out. Second, the nominee benefits from straight-ticket voters in the general election, that distinct subset of voters who don't even bother to look at the candidates' names. Third, the very act of cross-nominating winners gives the third-party credibility.

Fusion is always an electoral advantage, but when combined with multi-member districts, especially large multi-member districts, it produces real opportunity. This is explored in greater detail in the companion report Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.

Nonpartisan Local Races

Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire have predominantly nonpartisan local races. This is an important advantage, because most members who desire to run for office will be cutting their teeth in the local races first. This is an important way to build both name recognition for future political ambition and, in a bigger sense, to build the political machine that elects party members year in and year out. When the race is nonpartisan, the candidates cannot rely on a party label. Instead, the focus is on the candidate's message and arguments. This can only benefit those of us who wish to run as Libertarians.

To clarify, there may be other candidate states that possess this advantage, but the supporters of those states have not brought that information forward. To the best of the author's knowledge, only Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire offer nonpartisan local elections.

Ballot Access

Some members have advocated that we subvert one or both of the existing major party structures in the free state, while others have said that a new party or the Libertarian Party is the way to go. If you find yourself in the former group, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to the various states in this regard. If you find yourself in the latter group, then this has a tremendous impact on which state is the best choice.

  • Alaska – For major party status, a political party must either have nominated a candidate for governor that received at least 3% of the vote in the last general election or have registered voters equal to at least 3% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election. There are no provisions allowing nomination by petition.

  • Delaware – For major party status, a political party must register at least 5% of the total number of voters in the state. A minor party may nominate by convention as long as it has registered at least .05% of the voters in the state. Alternatively, anyone may be placed on the ballot upon submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the voters to be served by the objective office.

  • Idaho – Any party may qualify for major party status in one of three ways:

    1. Having three or more candidates for state or national office at a general election,
    2. A candidate receiving at least 3% of the votes cast for state or national office, or
    3. Submitting a number of petitions equal to 2% of the number of votes cast for president.

    Anyone may file as an Independent by submitting the relevant number of petitions: 1,000 for statewide office, 500 for congress, 50 for the state legislature, or 5 for county office.

  • Maine – "Major parties" are defined as the two parties polling the highest vote totals for governor in the most recent general election. Third parties are blatantly shut out on this score. However, minor parties are still qualified to take part in a primary if they hold municipal caucuses in at least one municipality in each county of the state, if a state convention is held, if the party's candidate for governor or President polled at least 5% of the total in either of the last two general elections, AND if it was on the ballot for either of the last two general elections.

  • New Hampshire – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for governor or United States Senator that obtains at least 4% of the vote in a general election. A political organization (minor party) may still have its name on the ballot for the general election by submitting a number of petitions equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last general election. Anyone can be nominated by submitting 3,000 petitions for governor, 750 for state senator, or 150 for state representative.

  • North Dakota – A political organization may not nominate anyone for statewide or legislative office unless it:

    1. Holds a caucus meeting in every voting precinct throughout the state by May 15th immediately following a general election,
    2. Had a candidate for president or governor receive at least 5% of the vote at the most recent general election, OR
    3. Submits 7,000 petitions to the secretary of state.

    Independents must be nominated at the primary election, with a different ballot clearly marked "No-Party." The number of people nominated for each office through the no-party process is twice the number of seats. In other words, as there can only be one governor, no more than two "no-party" candidates can be nominated.

  • South Dakota – For major party status, a party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last preceding election. A minor party may have its designation on the general ballot by submitting 250 petitions for statewide or federal office, or 5 petitions for legislative or county office. Independents may be placed on the general ballot by submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the total votes for the office of governor in the relevant district or subdivision in the most recent general election.

  • Vermont – For major party status, a party must have received at least 5% of the vote for any statewide office in the most recent general election. Minor parties may not nominate someone for statewide office unless town committees are set up in at least ten different towns. Anyone may be nominated to be on the general election ballot by submitting 250 signatures for statewide offices, 100 for state senator, or 50 for state representative.

  • Wyoming – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for statewide office that obtains at least 10% of the vote in a general election. To nominate via petitions, the party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2% of the votes cast in the relevant jurisdiction for the office of United States Representative in the preceding general election.

Geographic Features

The area of the candidate states, and their districts, is a factor that deserves serious consideration. Some states have a larger rural population, while the residents of some states prefer living in denser areas, mostly due to climate issues. There are two primary reasons why the area of the state should be a concern. First, the logistical difficulty of operating a campaign is directly proportional to the distance that must be covered. Campaigns in denser districts may be done on foot, whereas larger districts require hours to canvass in a vehicle. Second, larger areas make influencing the political process more difficult. There is much to be done in this regard, such as testifying before senate and house committees and visiting legislators to discuss issues. This is much easier when the state house is within easy commuting distance.

Geographic Rural/Urban Characteristics

StateArea1 Avg. House
Area2		 % Urban
Areas3		 Pop. Center
to Capital4
Alaska571,951 14,29944.3821.5
Delaware1,954 4867.825.8
Idaho82,747 1,18246.7129.9
Maine30,862 20424.62.7
Montana145,552 1,45625.990.1
New Hampshire8,968 10244.67.3
North Dakota68,976 1,46835.8116.4
South Dakota75,885 2,16825.8126.7
Vermont9,250 2017.337.7
Wyoming97,100 1,61825.5206.6

1 The area of the states in square miles.
2 The area divided by the number of state house districts. This is merely an average; it is important to remember that urban districts are quite small while rural districts are much larger.
3 The percentage of the population of the state that lives in urban areas, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
4 The distance from the state capital to the population center of a given state. This measure represents spatially where the capital is in regards to the population of the state. (See here and here).

Local Government

In the western states and in Delaware, the primary form of local government is based on county jurisdictions. Within each county there may be incorporated areas that may enact their own ordinances, as long as they are in compliance with the laws of the state and county. The end result of this system is to have all citizens under a tiered system, with those living in municipalities suffering from an additional level.

The three New England states are different. While they have counties, they exist mostly as lines on the map. Most of the functions of local government are performed at the town level, and the majority of the land area in the states is incorporated. In general, courts are operated at the county level, but all other functions, from roads to police to fire service to schools, are administered at the town level. Issues are discussed at town meetings, giving each citizen an opportunity to speak his mind.

This form of government has several important advantages. First, it is the closest to the people, assuring that everyone in each town knows their elected town officials personally. Remember, most power rests in the hands of town officials instead of county officials administering vastly larger areas. Second, it provides citizens amazing control over the town budget. In New Hampshire, fifteen signatures is enough to place a budget item, called a "warrant," on the ballot for referendum. If you don't want that new high school, get fifteen signatures and vote it down. If you don't want the town to get a new garbage truck because you think trash collection should be privatized, get fifteen signatures and put it on the ballot. Many towns have less than 1,000 people, and some have less than 100. Hart's Location, NH, only has 37 residents. Each town is in control of all of its spending.

This brings me to the final advantage of the town-centered form of local government. There are some areas of the New England states that are not incorporated. These are very lightly populated, and residents contract with the nearest town to provide those services that they do not provide for themselves, such as schools. There is no constitutional provision in New Hampshire requiring public schools, but there is a constitutional prohibition against the state issuing unfunded mandates to the towns. Thus, there is no reason why a small group of FSP members could not simply move to an unincorporated area and incorporate as a new town. For this town, they could write their own charter, prohibiting public schools, taxes, zoning, and anything else they wish. They could even decide to not have a police department.

For that matter, there are even some low-population towns that a few dozen FSP members would quickly overwhelm from sheer numbers. The current ordinances could be repealed and the charter altered. The degree to which this opportunity exists varies throughout the New England states. Vermont's constitution does not protect towns from unfunded state mandates, while Maine's constitution requires public schools to be maintained. New Hampshire offers both advantages.

Executive Council

As noted earlier, population – as a factor in the state choice – is only relevant because of the implications it holds for our ability to influence the process and work within the political system. For elections, the population of the entire state only matters when the entire state is your district; that is to say, for statewide offices. There are very few statewide offices. In most states only the governor, attorney general, and treasurer come under the heading of "statewide," and these are the only offices for which the state's population is an issue. As we will likely begin in local and state legislative races, it is the size of those districts that should most concern us.

New Hampshire possesses an advantage in this regard: the ability to influence the executive branch without winning a statewide office. The governor works with an elected "Executive Council," which must approve any expenditure over $5,000. They help the governor craft the budget, approve the placement of roads, and otherwise direct the day-to-day operation of government. The council has five members, elected from districts of roughly 247,157 persons each. These districts are, then, each almost exactly half the population of Wyoming, and would allow us to influence the executive branch earlier than is possible in any other state.

Conclusion

It is extremely simplistic to measure the candidate states against each other simply on the basis of overall population, as doing so assumes all other things are equal, which is assuredly not the case. There are two primary complicating factors that must be taken into consideration when weighing population. The first is the degree to which the native population leans with or against us. It is far better for the project to be in a state of a million people who lean libertarian than in a state of a half-million that leans socialist.

The second factor, which is even more important, is the accessibility of the given state's political system. There are many measures of accessibility, some of which can be quantified and some of which cannot. They include such measures as district size, whether the state has multi-member districts or fusion, or both, ballot access, and other unique features.

Considering population as a factor through these lenses provides a much more accurate picture of our chances of actually effecting change in the candidate states. One state, in particular, leaps to the top of the pile, both in terms of the libertarian leanings of the native population and, most importantly, in openness of the political system. On every measure here reviewed, New Hampshire comes out at, or near, the top. Of critical importance is the fact that New Hampshire offers that which no other state can: fusion combined with large multi-member districts. This crucial advantage is explored further in a companion report, Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.

Choosing which State to Liberate

Choosing which State to Liberate

By George Cunningham

In Tim Condon's article Our Most Important Decision he identifies the Final Four States by utilizing the all-important criteria of a low state voting population. In his article, Tim correctly identifies the single most important factor to our success as the State voting population. With this in mind it is difficult to dispute the final four suggested, those being Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming & North Dakota. Moreover, the suggested final two Wyoming & North Dakota seem to be our best chance of success.

But with consideration to Wyoming, several important points need to be reconsidered.

  1. Wyoming is considerably smaller than North Dakota by 77,000 voters or nearly 1/3.
    1. In Wyoming 20,000 activist voters would constitute about 9.3% of the 213,000 voting population.
    2. In North Dakota 20,000 activist voters would make up only 6.8% of the 290,000 voter population.
  2. Wyoming already has a larger conservative voting population than North Dakota.
  3. Wyoming may have a much better job outlook than North Dakota, if you take into consideration the commutable job market.
Job markets within commuting distance of Wyoming vs. North Dakota
  • From Wyoming
  • Evanston in southwest Wyoming is local to...
    • Salt Lake City, UT
    • Ogden, UT
    • West Valley City, UT
    • Sand City, UT
    • Orem & provo, UT (a stretch)
  • Cheyenne in southeast Wyoming is local to...
    • Fort Collins, CO
    • Greeley, CO
    • Longmont, CO
    • Boulder, CO (a stretch)
    • Denver & suburbs (a stretch, but achievable for freedom)
  • Beulah, in east Wyoming is local to...
    • Rapid City, SD (a stretch)
  • Sheridan, in north Wyoming is local to...
    • Billings, MO (a stretch)

  • From North Dakota
  • No cities of appreciable size are commutable (unless you own a plane or tele-commute)

Concerning the other issues raised about Wyoming.

  • Land owned by the federal government
    • This may make things difficult and costly if "parting company" becomes necessary, but should not hinder our initial bid for freedom
  • Concerning geography
    • If the USA/UN decide to hinder our trade, Canada may assist in that hinderance. The border may not make much difference concerning restricted trade, commerce (i.e. smuggling) might be as easy in Wyoming as in North Dakota. In this "New World Order" we may find North Dakota just as land-locked as Wyoming.
    • The climate is about 20 degrees more hospitable in Wyoming and the landscape considerably more beautiful than North Dakota
    • Wyoming is more centrally located for travelers
    • "Flying under the radar" may be easier from North Dakota, but after wrestling control of the State legislature we will certainly appear on everyone's radar.

In the final analysis, it seems that Wyoming may be the best choice, if we are to prevail against the forces of darkness.

In the movie "The Patriot" as the French come to our aid Mel Gibson states "Viva le France" and the French soldier aptly replies...

  • --"Viva le Liberty"--

Views that are expressed here are not those of the Free State Project.
Written by George Cunningham

Climate Report - 3

Climate Report – 3

By Keith Carlsen

Introduction

Not even one of the ten candidate states has what most people would consider ideal weather. However, many of the candidate states have their strengths, or weakness, depending on how you look at them. South Dakota has many wind tunnels; Delaware, New Hampshire, and Maine get the occasional tropical depression; Idaho gets frequent summer heat waves; and Alaska has more in common with Russia than with the lower forty-eight states.

Most Free State Project members will need to make small adjustments to their life, no matter which state is picked. Members might need to buy warmer winter clothes, wake up 15 minutes earlier so they can shovel snow, or replace their car with one that has front-wheel drive. Delaware offers members the mildest climate, whereas North Dakota and Alaska offer members the most dramatic climate changes.

For the purposes of this report, climate consists of five major variables:

  1. Sunshine
  2. Humidity
  3. Winter Temperature
  4. Snowfall
  5. Wind

  1. Sunshine

    2. "The Alaska Report" by Joe Littlejohn, compares some of the candidate states and a few other states for sunshine in January:

    City State Avg January
    Sunshine
    Sheridan WY 57%
    Portland ME 56%
    Concord NH 52%
    Fargo ND 50%
    Green Bay WI 49%
    Duluth MN 48%
    Burlington VT 41%
    Boise ID 40%
    Anchorage AK 34%
    Mt. Washington NH 32%
    Grand Rapids MI 28%
    Seattle WA 28%

  2. Humidity

    3. Generally, the western and mid-western states are less humid than the eastern states. Wyoming is one of the least humid states being considered. The east coast states of New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware range from average humidity to above average, depending on the season. Sussex County, Delaware even has a large swamp called the Great Cypress Swamp.

    Climatesource.com produced this map that shows average annual precipitation amounts for the entire country. The western and mid-western states tend to get noticeably less precipitation, according to the map. From least precipitation to most: brown, orange, yellow, light green, green, dark green, light blue, dark blue, and purple.

    (Climatesource.com has a special map for Alaska.)

  3. Winter Temperature

    4. In order to better understand the temperature issue, I listed the average January temperature for thirty-eight Wyoming, nine Idaho, nine South Dakota, nine New Hampshire, eight Alaska, eight Montana, six Maine, five North Dakota, two Delaware, and two Vermont towns. These towns are of varying size and from varying parts of the states. I listed a great deal more Wyoming towns because this information was originally compiled for a report on Wyoming.

    Based on just the cities listed, Delaware, Idaho, and Wyoming, seem to be the warmest states. Again, based on just the cities listed, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota seem to be the coldest states. The entire state of Delaware is warm, when compared to the other nine states. Idaho has several warm and cold spots. Alaska has the second warmest areas and all of the coldest areas. Wyoming's warmest area is its banana belt area in Laramie, Platte, and Goshen counties. South Dakota's Black Hills are much warmer than rest of South Dakota.

    Average January Temperatures in degrees F for selected cities

    (From highest to lowest temperature)

    City State Avg Jan
    Temp (F)
    Dover DE 33.7
    Ketchikan AK 33.3
    Wilmington DE 30.4
    Boise ID 29.0
    Coeur d Alene ID 28.6
    Wheatland WY 28.2
    Phillips WY 27.8
    Chugwater WY 27.6
    Yoder WY 27.0
    Twin Falls ID 27.0
    Jerome ID 26.9
    Pine Bluffs WY 26.8
    Sandpoint ID 26.7
    Juneau AK 26.5
    Cheyenne WY 26.4
    Carpenter WY 26.2
    Albin WY 26.1
    Archer WY 26.1
    La Grange WY 25.7
    Torrington WY 25.1
    Glenrock WY 24.8
    Hot Springs SD 24.5
    Cody WY 24.1
    Burris WY 24.0
    Billings MT 23.7
    Midwest WY 23.5
    Lusk WY 23.4
    Pocatello ID 23.1
    Douglas WY 23.2
    Missoula MT 23.2
    Elk Mountain WY 22.9
    Dubois WY 22.8
    Casper WY 22.3
    Centennial WY 22.3
    Valdez AK 21.9
    Buffalo WY 22.1
    Belle Fourche SD 22.1
    Deadwood SD 22.1
    Nashua NH 22.0
    New Castle WY 21.9
    Mountain View WY 21.7
    Saratoga WY 21.2
    Great Falls MT 21.2
    Malad City ID 21.1
    Portland ME 20.9
    Keene NH 20.9
    Massabesic Lake NH 20.8
    Gillette WY 20.6
    Rawlins WY 20.5
    City State Avg Jan
    Temp (F)
    City State Avg Jan
    Temp (F)
    Deer Lodge MT 20.5
    Laramie WY 20.2
    Sundance WY 20.2
    Rock Springs WY 20.1
    Thermopolis WY 19.8
    Sheridan WY 19.7
    Idaho Falls ID 19.7
    Lander WY 19.5
    Lewiston MT 19.5
    Dillinger WY 19.2
    Yellowstone Park WY 19.1
    Augusta ME 19.0
    Concord NH 18.9
    Burlington VT 18.0
    Montpelier ID 17.9
    Hanover NH 17.7
    Kemmerer WY 17.6
    Bangor ME 17.5
    Saint Johnsbury VT 17.3
    Dillingham AK 17.2
    Lebanon NH 16.9
    Pierre SD 16.8
    Butte MT 16.7
    Rumford ME 16.5
    Miles City MT 16.0
    Anchorage AK 15.8
    Jackson WY 15.3
    Berlin NH 14.6
    Sioux Falls SD 14.0
    Riverton WY 13.8
    Highmore SD 13.5
    Lancaster NH 13.4
    Huron SD 13.2
    Fort Yates ND 13.2
    Colebrook NH 12.2
    Presque Isle ME 11.7
    Glasgow MT 10.8
    Aberdeen SD 10.1
    Watertown SD 9.9
    Caribou ME 9.9
    Bismarck ND 9.2
    Minot ND 7.5
    Nome AK 7.0
    Fargo ND 5.8
    Grand Forks ND 4.6
    Fairbanks AK -10.0
    Nenana AK -10.6
    North Pole AK -13.1
    Barrow AK -13.3
    City State Avg Jan
    Temp (F)

    Source: ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/taps/

  4. Snowfall

    5. In order to better understand the snowfall issue, I listed the average yearly snowfall amount for twenty-three Wyoming, ten Montana, nine Idaho, eight South Dakota, eight New Hampshire, seven Alaska, seven Maine, seven Vermont, five North Dakota, and two Delaware towns. These towns are of varying size and from varying parts of the states. I listed a great deal more Wyoming towns because this information was originally compiled for a report on Wyoming. There are two very noticeable observations. First, Delaware, on average, gets much less snow than the other nine states. Secondly, Alaska, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, on average, get much more snow than the other six states.

    Average yearly snowfall in inches for selected cities

    (From lowest to highest)

    City State Avg Yearly
    Snowfall (in)
    Lovell WY 18.0
    Pavillion WY 18.3
    Dover DE 18.4
    Willington DE 21.4
    Boise ID 21.4
    Worland WY 22.4
    Green River WY 25.2
    Idaho Falls ID 27.5
    Dubois WY 28.3
    Pierre SD 28.3
    Twin Falls ID 28.7
    Watertown SD 29.4
    Riverton WY 29.5
    Torrington WY 29.7
    Carpenter WY 30.3
    Miles City MT 31.2
    Buffalo WY 32.0
    Evanston WY 32.6
    Dickinson ND 33.1
    Cody WY 33.4
    Laramie WY 33.9
    Aberdeen SD 34.4
    Moorcroft WY 34.8
    Grand Forks ND 35.1
    Hot Springs SD 35.1
    Newcastle WY 35.6
    Pine Bluffs WY 37.2
    Billings MT 37.8
    Kaycee WY 39.2
    Fargo ND 39.8
    Rapid City SD 40.1
    Malad City ID 40.6
    Huron SD 41.0
    Thermopolis WY 43.1
    Bismarck ND 43.1
    Wheatland WY 43.6
    Minot ND 44.1
    Rock Springs WY 44.2
    Yoder WY 45.0
    Pocatello ID 45.2
    Helena MT 46.3
    Cheyenne WY 52.4
    Missoula MT 53.0
    City State Avg Yearly
    Snowfall (in)
    City State Avg Yearly
    Snowfall (in)
    Grangeville ID 53.4
    Nome AK 54.4
    Coeur d Alene ID 54.7
    Joliet MT 57.5
    Durham NH 57.9
    Montpelier ID 58.3
    Sheridan WY 58.6
    Livingston MT 61.2
    Nashua NH 62.1
    Great Falls MT 62.1
    Spearfish SD 62.5
    Kalispell MT 63.0
    Concord NH 65.0
    Rutland VT 65.9
    Lewiston MT 66.4
    Anchorage AK 67.6
    Fairbanks AK 70.4
    Sandpoint ID 70.7
    Hanover NH 71.2
    Brunswick ME 74.6
    Augusta ME 77.9
    Bangor ME 79.1
    Plymouth NH 80.4
    Casper WY 82.1
    Burlington VT 82.2
    Berlin NH 83.4
    Madison ME 84.1
    Chittenden VT 84.8
    Dillingham AK 85.9
    Juneau AK 87.9
    St Johnsbury VT 89.0
    Ludlow VT 89.5
    Rumford ME 90.7
    Colebrook NH 90.9
    Presque Isle ME 91.4
    Montpelier VT 93.9
    Newport VT 97.7
    Bethlehem NH 99.7
    Deadwood SD 110.0
    Caribou ME 114.5
    Cordova AK 118.0
    Bozeman MT 130.4
    Valdez AK 285.5
    City State Avg Yearly
    Snowfall (in)

    Source: ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/taps/

    Climatesource.com produced this map that gives general estimates for snowfall though out the county. The map vividly shows that New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont are the three snowiest states in the lower forty-eight. >From least snow to most: white, light orange, light green, green, dark green, light blue, blue, dark blue, purple, and gray.

  5. Wind

    6. Generally, the mid-western states are the windiest states, followed by the western states, and finally by the eastern states. Generally, the eastern states are not any windier than the rest of the country. However, the eastern states have been known to experience very fast winds, especially near the mountains and coastline. South Dakota and North Dakota are by some distance, the windiest states.

    Average Wind categories for selected western cities: These numbers are estimates collected from several sets of wind maps:

    Avg Wind
    (Mph)     		State Cities
    0-12 Wyoming Sheridan, Green River, Riverton, Worland, Lander, Jackson, Thermopolis, Evanston
    Montana Missoula, Bozeman, Helena
    Idaho Boise, Nampa, Lewiston
    12-14.5 Wyoming Cheyenne, Laramie
    South Dakota Pierre, Sioux Falls
    North Dakota Fargo
    Montana Billings, Great Falls
    Idaho Pocatello, Idaho Falls
    14.5+ Wyoming Casper
    South Dakota Rapid City, Aberdeen
    North Dakota Grand Forks, Bismarck

Conclusion

Weather is much less important than several other factors, however; weather should be considered. Weather is important because it is easier to do outdoor campaigning in a state with little snow and rain, than it is in a state like New Hampshire (with lots of snow and rain), southern Alaska (lots of snow and rain), or Delaware (with lots of rain and some snow). Being warmer than North Dakota, South Dakota, or Alaska is another factor that helps with outdoor campaigning. Also, campaigning might be influenced by humidity, sunshine, or wind.

State Report AK 3: A Short Report on Alaska

A Short Report on Alaska

by Doug Ruzicka

I have read many of the reports concerning the target states for the Free State Project and I am compelled to offer a short report on my home state of Alaska.

This report will not throw statistics around nor is it a "for or against" report. I am submitting it to dispel the somewhat rosy picture that the two Alaska reports paint. This report is a "reality check".

The reports previously submitted are to be commended in regards to statistics and facts. Mostly, they are accurate. Yet, neither report tells anyone "how it really is" to live in Alaska.

Let me begin by saying that I am a resident of Alaska having moved here from Nebraska in the fall of 1992. I am married with six children. At present, only the youngest three remain at home.

I live on the Kenai Peninsula near a little place on the map called Anchor Point. I live on the road system in a small cabin with my family. If you live in a city you are an urban Alaskan. If you live on the road system you are a rural Alaskan. If you live off of the road system you are a bush Alaskan.

I am a public speaker and travel "Outside" (anywhere outside of Alaska) twice a year on speaking tours. The Kenai Peninsula is sometimes regarded as the "Banana belt of Alaska" with winter temperatures that can get to 35 below zero and as high as the low 80's in the summer, but it is usually not that extreme. It is typically rainy in the late summer with large amounts (12-16 feet) of snow in the winter.

The southern coastal area is called the South Central part of Alaska and the climate is controlled by the Japanese current which carries much moisture and milder temperatures to my area.

North and west of the Alaska range is considered the Interior of Alaska. It is here that Alaska sees temperatures as low as 50-60 below zero (the record is -100) with summertime highs in the 90's. It is a drier climate with less snow and rain.

The northern most part of Alaska (north of the Brooks Range) is considered the "slope". It is here that the temperatures are the most extreme. It is not a highly populated area.

One factor that affects some people are the long winter nights. The lengthy darkness in the winter affects many people. The old timers call it cabin fever. There is a medical term for it, but I can't recall what it is at the moment. It is a depletion of the vitamin balance in your body that sunlight usually gives you. It doesn't bother me at all. It can be treated by installing full spectrum lighting in your home or going to a tanning salon. The long winter nights seem to be particularly hard on the women. Where I live the sun rises just at 10 a.m. and sets just after 3 p.m. on winter solstice. The days are even shorter the farther north that you go until you reach the Arctic Circle and beyond that the sun doesn't even rise. The opposite is true in the summer.

At present Alaska does not have any state income or state sales taxes. This may be changing in the not too distant future as Alaska is experiencing a runaway budget. However, when, not if, these taxes are imposed they will most likely be the lowest in the nation in the beginning. Many cities have a city sales tax and many of the boroughs have a borough sales tax. (We have boroughs, not counties). It is no longer true that mineral royalties pay for 85% of the budget. A great part of the state budget is now carried by the rapidly depleting Constitutional Budget Reserve, our state savings account.

Alaska is an "owner state", meaning that the people own the mineral rights collectively and rarely individually. Very few landowners own their mineral rights. Alaska does not control the destiny of its oil. It cannot be exported by law. It is for domestic use only. My understanding is that this is a federal thing and not subject to change.

Employment is a bleak proposition in Alaska. While professionals, construction trades and those businesses supporting them flourish to a great degree, a very large portion of the remainder of Alaskans struggle with seasonal work at low wages. Here on the Kenai Peninsula we have a 4% unemployment rate in the summer and a 14-17% unemployment rate in the winter. 58% of the kids at the local school are at or below the poverty rate. It is a little better up north. All industries, or what is left of them, are fully manned. Don't come here believing that you will get a job on an oil rig or on the slope. It won't happen unless you know someone. Fishing is a dying industry. Timber is history. This year's tourism numbers are down 30%. Far too many jobs are seasonal service jobs at minimum wage. The opening of ANWR will not create a boom economy for Alaska like the pipeline did in the 70's.

Our legislature is predominately Republican, with most of those being moderates. The Alaskan Independence Party would be sympathetic to the free state cause, but the agenda of all AIP members is a new statehood vote with many AIP members embracing secession and nothing else. I believe that the AIP, as well as the Libertarian Party, would expect FSP'ers to join their ranks and not the other way around. Many AIP'ers reject the Libertarian Party because it is a national party, while the AIP is only a state party. They are not as chummy as they would have you believe.

Contrary to what you may believe, there is no free land in Alaska. 97% of the state is publicly owned. Do not expect this to change, even with 20,000 new voters. The Natives hold a great portion of it and they eagerly prosecute trespassers. The Homestead programs are history. All state land is disposed of by lottery or over the counter sales, with prices based on current assessments and requires a survey and sometimes some type of development at the cost of several thousands of dollars before title is given. Bush land is incredibly expensive to access. Some good wilderness land is available this way, as well as some rural and urban parcels. But, it is not free. Right now, real estate in Anchorage is at an all time high. House prices in Anchorage are through the roof. If you are a seller, good for you. But, if you're a buyer, good luck. Bring lots of cash. Lots.

Agriculture is a tough proposition. However, many folks do grow awesome gardens due to the long summer days, but many things require early starts in the house as well as a green house. It can be done and done well, but it requires a lot of attention. The Matanuska Valley is the agricultural center of the state. Dairy farming is one of the leading agricultural industries. Hay production also ranks right up there. Current hay (timothy grass) prices are $300 per ton. Alfalfa is shipped in from Canada. Pricey.

Hunting regulations are tough and strictly enforced. Poachers are scum here and few Alaskans think twice about reporting them. If you poach, be prepared to pay thousands in fines and confiscated equipment. Getting to game is the most difficult and expensive thing that I have ever experienced. The terrain does not favor the hunter. Fishing is very regulated and competitive as well.

There is lots of water here. Half or more of the state is marsh. Much, but certainly not all of the subsurface water has a high sulfur and iron content. My well is 18 feet deep and I have great water. My neighbor down the road had to go 100 feet and buy a filter system to make it potable.

Homeschooling is a breeze here, but will be facing local and state monitoring and accountability challenges in the near future. The public school system is good at the elementary level. Above that it's like anywhere else. If you live in a bush community it will be a native community and they can be very prejudiced against whites.

Yes, there is a dividend program here. This program pays each state resident a percentage of the mineral revenues received annually. This year's dividend will be about $1,100 for each Alaskan man, woman, and child. It can take up to two years to qualify. The politicians are trying very hard to take it away to cover budget deficits. They will succeed someday in eliminating it or diminishing it. DO NOT MOVE HERE FOR THE DIVIDEND! You will starve before you are eligible to get it.

Prices can be comparable to Outside (except housing). Anchorage has every store known to man, including Costco and Wal-Mart. A gallon of milk is near $3 in Anchorage. It's more where I live, close to $4. Gas is $1.81 a gallon. Propane is $2 per gallon.

I know that I do not paint a good picture of Alaska. I do this on purpose. What I want to impress upon everyone who considers Alaska as their state of choice is that they need to understand that this is a tough place to live. Do not come here expecting to live like Jeremiah Johnson. I tried. it didn't work. You will be separated from your family in the lower 48. You may not see them for a long time. Some of you will be resented by your family for leaving and taking the grand kids away. When you get here you most likely will not have family here or know any one. It will be tough to find affordable housing. It will be tough to find work. 20,000 people looking for work in Alaska at once or even over a long period may cause problems. People will distance themselves from you for a while; first to see what your game is, secondly because very few people here stay and folks are reluctant to make friends when they might leave next year. The town of Homer has a turnover rate of people moving in and out of 65% annually. If Alaska is chosen as the state to go to expect half to return back to their original homes.

The military presence is here to stay. They contribute greatly to our economy and are very welcome by nearly all Alaskans.

On the bright side, Alaska is like no other place on earth. It is the living embodiment of wild. You can live how you want with little criticism from anyone. The man with a $250,000 log home may live next door to a family that lives in a school bus, with no sense of arrogance. If you pull your own weight, you're OK. If you're on welfare, you're out. You can walk across the yard and encounter a mama moose and her calves. You may go fishing at the river and encounter a grizzly. With one inexpensive hunting license you can hunt moose, black bear, blacktail deer, caribou, sheep, and goats in some areas, without special permits. If you love to fish, there's no place like it. If you love to hike it cannot be beat. If you think earthquakes and volcanoes are cool (I do), then this is the place.

The people of Alaska are fiercely independent. Much of the "code of the north" still remains, but is being diluted by newcomers. Our famous Senator Ted Stevens does an awesome job of bringing Federal money to the state, but the state has become dependent upon it and sadly, all this federal money has made Alaska dependent upon the Feds. A lot of Alaskans want this Federal money. (I don't.)

One thing that I found very unique to Alaska was the ease of buying property. A very large percentage of property, including turnkey homes are owner financed, making it much easier to buy your own place here than any other place. I would have never been able to buy my own place Outside, but here I own 10 acres with a cabin and a house slowly under construction.

Some of the discussion on the forum talks of secession. There seems to be quite a bit of support for it by some of the Alaska advocates. Let me say this: forget it. While there are some here in Alaska that are secessionists, they are few in number. It is not as prevalent of a sentiment here as some would lead you to believe. Everyone I know and talk to is an American first and Alaskan second.

A voting force of 20,000 people will make a huge difference and thwart the moderate and liberal influences at work here in the state. Spread out in strategic areas, these voters will turn the tide of power away from those influences and establish a very welcome relief for many Alaskans. Forget the arguments of which party to join. There will be enough to start a new party, the Free State Party. (Just a thought.) Every election will reflect this influence. Personally, I pray for it to happen.

But, let me remind you all, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT.

If Alaska becomes the state of choice, let me help you move here. I can tell you what to bring and what to leave behind. I can tell you how to get your guns here. DON'T BELIEVE ANY STORIES ABOUT GUNS! I cross the international border eight times a year. I know. I can tell you what you need when you get here. I could write a book on how to move to Alaska.

If you all decide to come, count me as your first friend and neighbor. But, really think about it first. It's not like moving across the county.

Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Populations

Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Populations

By "Tennyson"

The political predisposition and climate of each of the 10 FSP candidate states is an important element, worth tracking and factoring in to our overall decision. One FSP member opined that, "EVERY state in this country contains a large majority too disgusted/apathetic to vote. And an overwhelming majority of those that DO vote are too confused/ignorant to make a consistent expression of their political disposition."

Like a good many generalizations, there is a degree of truth to that statement that should be acknowledged, but like all generalizations, it is best not to make life-changing decisions based on it.

Most people would question the assertion that the "overwhelming majority" (itself an inherently subjective term) in this country falls under the "confused/ignorant" characterization, but trying to prove or disprove the veracity of the statement is not a worthwhile exercise. Suffice to say that there are many people today who make conscious decisions not to participate and/or vote. Many people today proudly proclaim that they neither register nor vote, and have ready-made reasons why. Whatever their reasons, and whatever we individually may think of their reasoning, it indicates that at least some thought went into their decision.

However, all of this is peripheral to my central theme. Voter "apathy," "disgust," "ignorance," and "confusion" are not correct factors to focus on or gauge. We must discover a method of measuring a voting population's "predisposition." And while it would be helpful, indeed great, to know why the non-voters chose not to vote, such an investigation could easily become a rabbit hole diverting us from more important measurements.

In short, it is the voters amongst the voting age population (VAP) in the candidate states who warrant scrutiny.

Let me throw some numbers out. In the United States, the numbers breakdown as follows:

  1. 196 million eligible voters.
  2. 146 million registered voters.
  3. 96 million who actually voted (49 percent of eligible voters).

The above figures are helpful, but have limited utility. Let's move on to a more important subset of information. In the 2000 elections, the voter turnout within the 10 FSP candidate states breaks down as follows (from highest turnout percentage to the lowest):

STATE2000 VOTING
AGE POP.		TURNOUT
(# Votes)		TURNOUT
(PERCENT)
Maine968,000652,41867.4
Alaska430,000276,74964.4
Vermont460,000293,20663.7
New Hampshire911,000567,71562.3
Montana668,000411,08361.5
North Dakota477,000288,32160.4
Wyoming358,000213,75959.7
South Dakota543,000316,26258.2
Delaware582,000327,50756.3
Idaho921,000494,47053.7

Why would Maine and Idaho, two states with quite similar voting age populations (VAP), have such a marked disparity in voter turnout? Proportionately, approximately 130,000 (10.7%) more decided to vote in Maine than in Idaho. Were the voters in Idaho "apathetic"? "Disgusted"? Were they disenfranchised or less civic-minded? What does this raw difference in numbers, some 130,000, mean for the FSP? Can we capitalize on this? If so, the information should certainly be factored in.

Better yet, and more salient to the issue regarding political predisposition/climate of each of the 10 candidate states, what can we conclude from those who did vote? Consider these figures (collected from http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/prevote2000.htm):

STATETURNOUT
(%)		BUSHGORENADERBUCHANANBROWNEHAGELINPHILLIPS
ME67.4286,616319,95137,7574,3152,957N/A822
AK64.4167,39879,00422,7894,2542,115737452
VT63.7119,775149,02219,8102,182728210N/A
NH62.3273,559266,34822,1562,6032,723N/A326
MT61.5240,178137,12624,4875,7351,7236791,155
ND60.4174,85295,2849,5287,316671298372
WY59.7147,94760,481N/A2,7241,456427724
SD58.2190,700118,804N/A3,3141,664N/A1,780
DE56.3137,288180,0688,288775774107207
ID53.7336,937138,6375,0777,6873,4891,1551,488

Now, these numbers are telling, but before I go on, let me say this: While I would definitely agree with those who warn against automatically assuming that voting for a Republican is better than voting for a Democrat---the equivalent of, say, picking between two lethal poisons---that was not the perceived case in the 2000 elections. Indeed, I think it's safe to say that going into the elections (regardless of what has happened since), few imagined the Bush/Cheney ticket to be greater "Statists" (Big S) than the Gore/Lieberman duet. And fewer still were prepared to argue that Gore, given his horrid record during the Clinton years, would be a better protector of liberty than the politically untested and relatively unknown Bush. One man was the sidekick of a president who did all he could to grow the central government more than any other in the history of the Union. The other was the son of a previous president and was being pitched as a Reaganesque figure who believed in smaller government. Reality has proved different, to be sure, but that was the "tale of the tape" going into the 2000 elections. From a Libertarian point of view, there was little choice in 2000: Few of us opted to vote for Gore.

But what do the numbers above say? For the sake of consistency, let's look again at the two states with the similar VAP numbers, Maine and Idaho:

StateTurnoutBushGoreNaderBuchananBrowneHagelinPhillips
ME67.4%286,616319,95137,7574,3152,957N/A822
ID53.7%336,937138,6375,0777,6873,4891,1551,488

First we need to do some rudimentary grouping: Grouping together Al Gore (Democratic Party), Ralph Nader (Green Party), and Dr. John Hagelin (Natural Law Party) yields a total of 357,708 votes for discernable Statists in Maine.

Similarly, lumping George Bush (Republican Party) together with Pat Buchanan (Reform Party), Howard Philips (Constitution Party), and Harry Browne (Libertarian Party), shows that there was a total of 294,710 votes for discernable Small-Government candidates in Maine. That's 357,708 votes for "Big G" candidates versus 294,710 votes for "Small G" candidates, a difference of 21%. That is, 21% more people voted for recognizably "Statist" (Big G) candidates in Maine, a state that already has a larger percentage of the population voting than the national average (67.4% in Maine vs. 49% for the national average). Not promising for FSP goals is it?

Now contrast the above with Idaho, which had 144,869 votes for the "Statists" while 349,601 voted for "Small G" candidates. That's 141% more votes for recognizably "Small G" candidates in the State of Idaho than for "Big G" candidates. That's almost 2 ½ times as many people in a state that on average (adjusted) had 10.7% less of the VAP participating than in Maine. Not only does this make Idaho a promising candidate for the FSP to begin with, but there is also room to gain additional supporters from the block of non-voters who, for whatever reason, chose not to vote. (Incidentally, Idaho VAP, although much less active than Maine's, still outperformed the national average---53.7% in Idaho to the 49% national average.)

The same analysis could be applied across the remaining 8 candidate states, giving us an additional lens through which to look at our candidates and measure our real chances of success. In short, the "political predisposition" of a state can make a huge difference for us, and these voting figures, measured together with other known factors such as gun control, home schooling, etc. can help us significantly. Thus, with additional number crunching across the 10 candidate states, a picture begins to emerge.

StateVoter
Turnout		"Big G"
Candidates		"Small G"
Candidates		Predisposition
by Percentage
VT63.7%169,042 votes122,685 votes37% Big G
ME67.4%357,708 votes294,710 votes21% Big G
DE56.3%188,463 votes139,044 votes35% Big G
NH62.3%288,504 votes279,211 votes3% Big G
MT61.5%162,292 votes248,791 votes53% Small G
SD58.2%118,804 votes197,458 votes66% Small G
AK64.4%102,530 votes174,596 votes70% Small G
ND60.4%105,510 votes183,211 votes73% Small G
ID53.7%144,869 votes349,601 votes141% Small G
WY59.7%60,908 votes152,851 votes151% Small G

Here we can see that the statement made by politicos and election analysts---that the western "fly-over" states tend to be more conservative, small government states---is certainly true with our candidates. Indeed, the numbers are most revealing when compared against the FSP candidate states in the East.

Although there are Libertarian Party (LP) constituencies in states like Maine and New Hampshire, the overall numbers are more telling. In fact all the eastern states except NH have a strong statist predisposition. And while New Hampshire is putting up a good fight, it would appear their days are numbered as the ongoing influx of statist voters from Massachusetts looking for more affordable homes continues unabated.

There is another way to measure political predisposition in a state, and that is political party registration. Consider these VAP figures for, variously, Alaska, Maine, Delaware, and New Hampshire as of 2000 (with a separate analysis for each state).

(NOTE: * All data is for September, October or November 2000, except Maine, which is for June 2000.
** The parties in the "Other" column are: In Alaska, 19,346 Alaskan Independence and 2,094 Republican Moderate.
*** Dashes mean that the voters are not permitted to register into a particular party, since the particular party is not, or was not, qualified in that state, and the state won't let people register into unqualified parties. A question mark means that the state has not tabulated the number of registrants in a particular party.)

ALASKA:

StateDemocratRepubIndepConstitLPGreenReformNatlawOther
AK76,561116,059248,37456,8844,26058721,440

NOTES: Typically independents (Indep) could be nullified, as they tend to split down the middle and cancel each other out. However, sometimes a particular state's registered "Independent" voters tend to lean heavily towards Statist or non-Statist platforms which can be measured again and again. This gives us an indication of the "political predispositions" of the registered Independents as a voting block of the state in question. So let's start:

248,374 Registered Independents.
Alaska Totals:

  • 80,828 voters registered with "Big G" parties.
  • 144,453 voters registered with "Small G" parties.
  • Raw registered voter numbers: 78% more predisposed to "Small G" parties over "Big G" parties.
  • Raw 2000 Presidential numbers including Independents: Alaskans voted 70% more for "Small G" candidates.
  • Difference between 70% and 78%: Margin indicating Independent split between Big G and Small G candidates; that is, in the election Independents tended to vote 8% more in favor of Big G candidates than raw voter registration numbers would indicate. If Independents had split the same way the political party registration numbers had split, then the vote in the presidential election would have been 78% more for Small G candidates instead of 70% more.

MAINE:

StateDemocratRepubIndepConstitLPGreenReformNatlawOther
ME280,987265,889330,430??2,1522,879?N/P

330,430 Registered Independents.
Maine Totals:

  • 283,139 voters registered with "Big G" parties.
  • 268,768 voters registered with "Small" G parties.
  • Raw Registered Voter numbers: 5% more predisposed to "Big G" parties over "Small G" parties.
  • Raw 2000 Presidential numbers including Independents: Maine voted 21% more for "Big G" candidates.
  • Difference between 5% and 21%: Significant percentage indicating Independents lean towards Big G candidates.

DELAWARE:

StateDemocratRepubIndepConstitLPGreenReformNatlawOther
DE214,515171,447115,228291738473295334351

115,228 Registered Independents.
Delaware Totals:

  • 215,322 voters registered with "Big G" parties.
  • 172,771 voters registered with "Small" G parties.
  • Raw Registered Voter numbers: 24% more predisposed to "Big G" parties over "Small G" parties.
  • Raw 2000 Presidential numbers including Independents: Delaware voted 35% more for "Big G" candidates.
  • Difference between 24% and 35%: Significant percentage indicating Independents lean towards "Big G" candidates.

***
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
>>>>>> The most interesting so far is New Hampshire.<<<<<<

StateDemocratRepubIndepConstitLPGreenReformNatlawOther
NH224,564302,138329,817?????N/P

224,564 Registered Independents.
New Hampshire Totals:

  • 224,564 voters registered with "Big G" parties.
  • 302,138 voters registered with "Small" G parties.
  • Raw Registered Voter numbers: 34% more predisposed to "Small G" parties over "Big G" parties. (great!)
  • Raw 2000 Presidential numbers including Indpendents: NH voted 3% more for "Big G" candidates (that's a killer).
  • Difference between 34% and a 3% swing: Significant percentage indicating Indpendents leaned heavily towards Big G candidates.

Here is a classic example of Independents reversing the Big Party fates and fortunes, and subsequently the fate and fortune of the state. In this case, NH independents made a conscious decision to vote for Al Gore---who was understood to be a hard core left-winger, big government, and UN (New World Order) advocate---over George Bush, who at the time was portrayed as a small government, "local empowerment," anti-NWO advocate.

Looking at the numbers again, this time from the "Registered Voters" perspective, we get similar results where the states in the East appear to have insurmountable Big Government/Statist leanings. The one state that was not East coast, Alaska, registered similar numbers to those of my previous analysis using the raw 2000 Presidential numbers.

I suspect running the "Registered Voter" figures against the western based "fly-over" states would also look similar to the previous numbers. The important thing to note here is that, when using the "Registered Voter" numbers, the eastern states indicate an even heavier bias toward Big Government parties than our first analysis using the total presidential vote numbers.

Either way, there are no conflicts between the raw presidential vote totals and the "Registered Voter" numbers. In fact, the figures support and corroborate each other.

In the end, the FSP must pick from amongst those states that offer a real chance of succeeding in its audacious plan. Population size is critical but political predisposition, judging from the evidence so far, may be just as important. We cannot expect to effect a major change in the prevailing attitude (read "political predisposition") of the existing population in a state. We can only hope to make incremental changes over time. Therefore, the FSP must seek out those groups of people who are most amenable to our beliefs.

The FSP can work with those states that have a large percentage of non-voters (call them the "disgusted," the "disenfranchised," or the "moral abstainers"). They are fodder for our canon.

But far more important are those voters that get out and vote in every election. With respect to them, this much is true: The greatest chasm between the FSP and success is that between between a Libertarian and a Democrat. And the shortest distance between us and success is that between a Libertarian and a Philips supporter (Constitution Party), followed closely by a Buchanan-ite, and then, most importantly, by a Republican.

Rank the States on Your Own Criteria

// Normalize the values to unit volume function norm_vals (vals) { min = max = vals[0]; for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++) { if (vals[i] < min) { min = vals[i]; } if (vals[i] > max) { max = vals[i]; } } range = max - min; for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++) { vals[i] = (vals[i] - min) / range; } } // Calculate the sum of all the parameters for a particular state function sum_states (pop,gov1,area,gov2,ins,inc,vote,dep,fin,tax,blm,efi,pland,job,liv,land,crm,pres,urba,gun,urbc,gov3,nea,geo,ii,weight) { rv = 0; rv += (pop[ii] * weight[0]); rv += (gov1[ii] * weight[1]); rv += (area[ii] * weight[2]); rv += (gov2[ii] * weight[3]); rv += (ins[ii] * weight[4]); rv += (inc[ii] * weight[5]); rv += (vote[ii] * weight[6]); rv += (dep[ii] * weight[7]); rv += (fin[ii] * weight[8]); rv += (tax[ii] * weight[9]); rv += (blm[ii] * weight[10]); rv += (efi[ii] * weight[11]); rv += (pland[ii] * weight[12]); rv += (job[ii] * weight[13]); rv += (liv[ii] * weight[14]); rv += (land[ii] * weight[15]); rv += (crm[ii] * weight[16]); rv += (pres[ii] * weight[17]); rv += (urba[ii] * weight[18]); rv += (gun[ii] * weight[19]); rv += (urbc[ii] * weight[20]); rv += (gov3[ii] * weight[21]); rv += (nea[ii] * weight[22]); /* // Location, locked if ((weight[23] != 0) && (geo[ii] == 1)) { rv += (1.0 * weight[23]); } // Location, isolated if ((weight[24] != 0) && (geo[ii] == 2)) { rv += (1.0 * weight[24]); } // Location, canada if ((weight[25] != 0) && (geo[ii] == 3)) { rv += (1.0 * weight[25]); } // Location, coast if ((weight[26] != 0) && (geo[ii] == 4)) { rv += (1.0 * weight[26]); } */ return (rv); } // Sort numerically function numberorder (a, b) { return a-b; } // The main workhorse function compute(form) { // The current data Pop = new Array(); Pop.push(494); Pop.push(635); Pop.push(634); Pop.push(613); Pop.push(757); Pop.push(796); Pop.push(904); Pop.push(1321); Pop.push(1259); Pop.push(1287); Area = new Array(); Area.push(97105); Area.push(570374); Area.push(68994); Area.push(9249); Area.push(75898); Area.push(1955); Area.push(145556); Area.push(82751); Area.push(8969); Area.push(30865); Ins = new Array(); Ins.push(42.5); Ins.push(38.1); Ins.push(72.5); Ins.push(54.3); Ins.push(68.1); Ins.push(48.3); Ins.push(56.1); Ins.push(47.2); Ins.push(43.3); Ins.push(67.3); Geo = new Array(); Geo.push(1); Geo.push(2); Geo.push(3); Geo.push(3); Geo.push(1); Geo.push(4); Geo.push(3); Geo.push(3); Geo.push(4); Geo.push(4); Vote = new Array(); Vote.push(213); Vote.push(288); Vote.push(290); Vote.push(291); Vote.push(316); Vote.push(328); Vote.push(411); Vote.push(488); Vote.push(567); Vote.push(647); Fin = new Array(); Fin.push(4.7); Fin.push(6.1); Fin.push(4.2); Fin.push(4.3); Fin.push(13.8); Fin.push(8.7); Fin.push(10.9); Fin.push(7.7); Fin.push(8.2); Fin.push(11.4); Blm = new Array(); Blm.push(45.9); Blm.push(67); Blm.push(3.9); Blm.push(6.4); Blm.push(6.3); Blm.push(2); Blm.push(28.8); Blm.push(62.7); Blm.push(12.8); Blm.push(1); Pland = new Array(); Pland.push(47.782); Pland.push(23.77); Pland.push(62.684); Pland.push(7.791); Pland.push(69.186); Pland.push(1.812); Pland.push(91.1); Pland.push(24.52); Pland.push(7.36); Pland.push(29.103); Liv = new Array(); Liv.push(29.72); Liv.push(24.86); Liv.push(28.23); Liv.push(27.63); Liv.push(29.02); Liv.push(25.93); Liv.push(23.98); Liv.push(25.56); Liv.push(31.81); Liv.push(28.53); Crm = new Array(); Crm.push(3518); Crm.push(4236); Crm.push(2418); Crm.push(2769); Crm.push(2332); Crm.push(4053); Crm.push(3689); Crm.push(3133); Crm.push(2322); Crm.push(2688); UrbA = new Array(); UrbA.push(25.5); UrbA.push(44.3); UrbA.push(35.8); UrbA.push(17.3); UrbA.push(25.8); UrbA.push(67.8); UrbA.push(25.9); UrbA.push(46.7); UrbA.push(44.6); UrbA.push(24.6); UrbC = new Array(); UrbC.push(39.8); UrbC.push(21.4); UrbC.push(20.0); UrbC.push(20.9); UrbC.push(26.2); UrbC.push(12.2); UrbC.push(28.1); UrbC.push(19.7); UrbC.push(14.6); UrbC.push(15.6); Gov1 = new Array(); Gov1.push(13.4); Gov1.push(19.1); Gov1.push(14.4); Gov1.push(13.0); Gov1.push(12.7); Gov1.push(9.2); Gov1.push(16.5); Gov1.push(13.1); Gov1.push(7.7); Gov1.push(14.1); Gov2 = new Array(); Gov2.push(9.4); Gov2.push(9.7); Gov2.push(9.1); Gov2.push(9.7); Gov2.push(8.3); Gov2.push(6.9); Gov2.push(10.8); Gov2.push(9.5); Gov2.push(6.2); Gov2.push(9.8); Inc = new Array(); Inc.push(37.9); Inc.push(51.6); Inc.push(34.6); Inc.push(40.9); Inc.push(35.3); Inc.push(47.4); Inc.push(33.0); Inc.push(37.6); Inc.push(49.5); Inc.push(37.2); Dep = new Array(); Dep.push(1.14); Dep.push(1.63); Dep.push(1.95); Dep.push(1.12); Dep.push(1.50); Dep.push(0.86); Dep.push(1.67); Dep.push(1.24); Dep.push(0.71); Dep.push(1.31); Tax = new Array(); Tax.push(9.8); Tax.push(6.3); Tax.push(10.2); Tax.push(11.0); Tax.push(9.1); Tax.push(10.2); Tax.push(10.0); Tax.push(10.5); Tax.push(8.6); Tax.push(12.8); Efi = new Array(); Efi.push(4.41); Efi.push(6.01); Efi.push(5.00); Efi.push(5.59); Efi.push(4.47); Efi.push(4.56); Efi.push(5.20); Efi.push(3.92); Efi.push(4.55); Efi.push(6.22); Job = new Array(); Job.push(27.45); Job.push(48.65); Job.push(34.35); Job.push(36.65); Job.push(55.6); Job.push(75.95); Job.push(79.9); Job.push(185.9); Job.push(105.7); Job.push(65.4); Land = new Array(); Land.push(10); Land.push(10); Land.push(10); Land.push(0); Land.push(10); Land.push(0); Land.push(10); Land.push(6.7); Land.push(3.3); Land.push(3.3); Pres = new Array(); Pres.push(69.9); Pres.push(59.8); Pres.push(61.0); Pres.push(41.4); Pres.push(60.8); Pres.push(42.2); Pres.push(59.1); Pres.push(68.2); Pres.push(48.6); Pres.push(44.5); Gun = new Array(); Gun.push(-4); Gun.push(-8); Gun.push(-5); Gun.push(-5); Gun.push(-3); Gun.push(2); Gun.push(-6); Gun.push(-3); Gun.push(0); Gun.push(-10); Gov3 = new Array(); Gov3.push(22.0); Gov3.push(29.6); Gov3.push(18.5); Gov3.push(13.9); Gov3.push(17.5); Gov3.push(13.3); Gov3.push(20.0); Gov3.push(17.3); Gov3.push(13.8); Gov3.push(15.4); Nea = new Array(); Nea.push(1.16); Nea.push(2.15); Nea.push(1.41); Nea.push(1.46); Nea.push(0.86); Nea.push(1.16); Nea.push(1.57); Nea.push(0.84); Nea.push(0.84); Nea.push(1.42); num = 27; // First, normalize all the data norm_vals (Pop); norm_vals (Area); norm_vals (Ins); norm_vals (Vote); norm_vals (Fin); norm_vals (Blm); norm_vals (Pland); norm_vals (Liv); norm_vals (Crm); norm_vals (UrbA); norm_vals (UrbC); norm_vals (Gov1); norm_vals (Gov2); norm_vals (Inc); norm_vals (Dep); norm_vals (Tax); norm_vals (Efi); norm_vals (Job); norm_vals (Land); norm_vals (Pres); norm_vals (Gun); norm_vals (Gov3); norm_vals (Nea); // norm_vals (Geo); // Grab the weights weight = new Array(); for (i = 0 ; i < num ; i++) { if ((document.forms[0].elements[i].value < -10) || (document.forms[0].elements[i].value > 10)) { var msg; msg = "All Weights must be between -10 and 10 (inclusive)" alert (msg); return (false); } if (document.forms[0].elements[i].value == "") { weight[i] = 0; } else { weight[i] = document.forms[0].elements[i].value; } } // Calculate the results sums = new Array(); for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++) { rv = sum_states (Pop,Gov1,Area,Gov2,Ins,Inc,Vote,Dep,Fin,Tax, Blm,Efi,Pland,Job,Liv,Land,Crm,Pres,UrbA,Gun,UrbC, Gov3,Nea,Geo,i,weight); sums[i] = rv; } Wy = sums[0]; Ak = sums[1]; Nd = sums[2]; Vt = sums[3]; Sd = sums[4]; De = sums[5]; Mt = sums[6]; Id = sums[7]; Nh = sums[8]; Me = sums[9]; form.wy.value = Wy; form.ak.value = Ak; form.nd.value = Nd; form.vt.value = Vt; form.sd.value = Sd; form.de.value = De; form.mt.value = Mt; form.id.value = Id; form.nh.value = Nh; form.me.value = Me; sums.sort(numberorder); rank = new Array(); rank[0] = 0; rank[1] = 0; rank[2] = 0; rank[3] = 0; rank[4] = 0; rank[5] = 0; rank[6] = 0; rank[7] = 0; rank[8] = 0; rank[9] = 0; for (i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++) { if (sums[i] == Wy) { rank[0] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Ak) { rank[1] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Nd) { rank[2] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Vt) { rank[3] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Sd) { rank[4] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == De) { rank[5] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Mt) { rank[6] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Id) { rank[7] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Nh) { rank[8] = 10 - i; } if (sums[i] == Me) { rank[9] = 10 - i; } } form.wy_r.value = rank[0]; form.ak_r.value = rank[1]; form.nd_r.value = rank[2]; form.vt_r.value = rank[3]; form.sd_r.value = rank[4]; form.de_r.value = rank[5]; form.mt_r.value = rank[6]; form.id_r.value = rank[7]; form.nh_r.value = rank[8]; form.me_r.value = rank[9]; return (0); }

Rank the States on Your Own Criteria


The following ranking system is easier and allows more freedom than the spreadsheet, but it can also be trickier! Refer to the State Data page and follow the instructions below.

To assign weights, ask yourself if a large number for a particular item is good or bad. For instance, if a large population is good, then assign the weight a large positive value. If a large population is bad, assign the weight a large negative value. If you don't care, the weight value should be zero (or near zero). Weights can be any value from -10 to 10 (inclusive). (Note the legend for each variable at the bottom.)

Once you've entered the weights, click on the 'Calculate' button and the results will appear in the labeled boxes below. Interpreting the results is easy: the higher (more positive) the value, the higher your preference for that state! The ranking of the state (1 thru 10) is also shown.

General Data
Weights		Economic and Political Data
Weights
Pop Gov1
Area Gov2
Ins Inc
Vot Dep
Fin Tax
Blm EFI
Pland Job
Liv Land
Crm Pres
UrbA Gun
UrbC Gov3
NEA

StateScoreRank StateScoreRank StateScoreRank
WY:AK:ND:
VT:SD:DE:
MT:ID:NH:
ME:

Pop=Population in 1000's
Area=Area in square miles
Ins=% of state population born inside the state, from Census
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 6 years, in millions of $ (lower numbers are better)
Blm=% of state's territory owned by federal government (lower numbers are better)
PLand= amount of private and locally owned land (not state or federal), in millions of square miles
Liv=Livability rating, 2002, 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 (lower numbers are better)
UrbA=population in urbanized areas as % of total population
UrbC=population in urban clusters as % of total population (rban clusters are densely populated small towns)

Gov1=Federal, state, and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product (lower numbers are better)
Gov2=State and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product (lower numbers are better)
Inc=Median household income in $1000s (higher is better)
Dep=$ this state gets back in federal expenditures for every $1 paid in federal taxes, 2001 (lower is better)
Tax=State and local taxes (all sources) as a percentage of income, 2000 (lower is better)
EFI=Economic Freedom Index (lower numbers are better)
Job=1000's of new jobs forecast, 1998-2008 (higher is better: this variable is more important than current unemployment rate)
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 better: in presidential elections votes for Republicans generally indicate a rough support for the free market over socialism, whereas on the state level both Republicans and Democrats may differ from the positions of the national parties)
Gun=severity of state gun control laws, as estimated by the poorly-named Open Society Institute (states that score lower are better for us!)
Gov3=Percentage of state population employed by state and local governments, 2001
NEA=Percentage of state population in the National Education Association or American Federation of Teachers

State Reports

State Reports

(See also: State Data)

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

State Comparison Reports

Old/obsolete reports

State Report AK 1: Alaska Report

Alaska Report

by Joseph Littlejohn

Author's Disclaimer: I am personally biased on the issue of FSP state selection. I currently own property in Alaska, and love the state for a variety of reasons. This paper is written, for the most part, from an advocacy point of view, although a few counter-arguments are grudgingly offered.

Many would agree that the major criteria affecting state selection are ?livability? and the potential for affecting the local political process. This paper will concentrate on what I believe are the major attributes that make Alaska a good choice for the Free State.

In brief these criteria are:

1) general environmental livability, including climate and weather

2)? infrastructure, industry, employment

3) the existing political/cultural environment, including indigenous parties sympathetic to FSP goals, voter trends and current law

4) overall geopolitical factors and potential future relations with the Federal government

________________________________________
Livability - climate and weather
_________________________________________

Winter temperatures in Alaska are often assumed to be extreme, and in certain areas they can be. However, during winter, it can actually be warmer in the Anchorage area and the surrounding Matanuska-Susitna borough than in certain parts of the lower 48. This is due to the warming effect of the ocean which provides a moderating influence on the local climate. ________________________________________________________________________

The normal daily mean temperature in January, for selected cities, in degrees Fahrenheit

International Falls, MN ??????????? 2.7 F
Mt. Washington, NH ??????????????? 5.2 F
Grand Forks, ND ???????????????????? 5.3 F
Nome, AK ????????????????? 5.8 F
Duluth, MN ???????????????????????????? 8.4 F
Caribou, ME ??????????????????????????? 9.5 F
Glasgow, MT ?????????????????????????? 10.8 F
Sioux Falls, SD ??????????????????????? 14.0 F
Alamosa, CO ?????????????????????????? 14.7 F
Green Bay, WI ????????????????????????? 15.6 F
Anchorage, AK ?????????? 15.8 F
Burlington, VT ???????????? 18.0 F
Concord, NH ?????????????????????????? 20.1 F
Portland, ME ??????????????????????????? 21.7 F
Chicago, IL ????????????????????????????? 22.0 F
Casper, WY ????????????????????????????? 22.3 F
Pocatello, ID ?????????????????????????? 24.4 F
Elko, NV ????????????????????????????????? 25.6 F
Juneau, AK ???????????????? 25.7 F
Kodiak, AK ??????????????? 29.7 F
Wilmington, DE ?????????????????????? 31.5 F
___________________________


As can be seen in the following list, on average, Anchorage receives less snow than many areas in the lower 48 states.
____________________________________________________________________

Average Snowfall in January for selected cities, in inches;

Alamosa, CO ?????????????? 4.3 in
Glasgow, MT ?????????????? 6.7 in
Wilmington, DE ?????????? 6.8 in
Sioux Falls, SD ??????????? 7.0 in
Pocatello, ID ?????????????? 9.7 in
Casper, WY ????????????????? 10.0 in
Elko, NV ????????????????????? 10.1 in
Anchorage, AK ?? 10.5 in
Nome, AK ????????? 10.6 in
Chicago, IL ????????????????? 11.1 in
Green Bay, WI ????????????? 11.9 in
International Falls, MN 12.9 in
Kodiak, AK ??????? 15.3 in
Duluth, MN ???????????????? 17.8 in
Concord, NH ?????????????? 17.9 in
Burlington, VT 19.3 in
Portland, ME ??????????????? 19.4 in
Caribou, ME ??????????????? 24.4 in
Juneau, AK ???????? 25.7 in
Mt. Washington, NH ??? 40.8 in
---------------------------


The summers are fairly moderate, with Anchorage having a mean temperature of 58.8 F in July. This is comparable to the San Francisco area, which is moderated by ocean winds during the summer, and has a mean temperature of 61.3 F in July. Likewise, Eureka CA, also on the coast, attains a mean of 58.1 F.

The shorter length of days in the far north during winter will certainly be a concern for some people, especially those that suffer to some extent from Seasonal Affective Disorder. However, only areas above the arctic circle (125 miles above Fairbanks) will ever experience 24 hours of darkness or light. In Anchorage, at winter solstice, daylight lasts about 5 1/2 hours. However, at summer solstice, the day is about 19 1/2 hours long. (recall that during the equinox, the length of day and night are equal, and the same at all locations on the earth ).

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sunshine - average percentage possible for local area, January
(accounts for cloud cover and precipitation)

Seattle, WA ????????????????? 28%
Grand Rapids, MI ???????? 28%
Juneau, AK ???????? 32%
Mt. Washington, NH ??? 32%
Anchorage, AK ?? 34%
Nome, AK ????????? 40%
Boise, ID ???????????????????? 40%
Burlington, VT 41%
Duluth, MN ???????????????? 48%
Green Bay, WI ????????????? 49%
Fargo, ND ?????????????????? 50%
Concord, NH ?????????????? 52%
Portland, ME ??????????????? 56%
Sheridan, WY ?????????????? 57%
------------------------

A side note about growing seasons;
Strange as it may sound, Alaska has a farming and agriculture industry. Output includes various vegetable crops, grain and livestock. The greatly increased hours of daylight during summer tend to offset the effect of shorter seasons. Chief crops farmed are barley, oats, hay, potatoes, lettuce. Livestock raised are cattle, sheep, reindeer, bison, and poultry.

(It's reported that the intense growing season produced a particularly fast growing, potent variety of marijuana which contributed to its later re-criminalization - this "cash crop" has been "discovered" growing as far north as Fairbanks.)
________________________________________________________________________
Average growing season for selected cities and regions, in days

Portland, ME ??????????????? 173 d
Juneau, AK ???????? 172 d
Kodiak, AK ??????? 160 d
southern, NH ????????????? 150 d
Bismarck, ND ????????????? 140 d
Anchorage, AK ?? 125 d
Valdez, AK ???????? 116 d
northern, VT ?????????????? 100 d
------------------------

__________________________________________________________________
LIVABILITY - infrastructure, industry, employment
__________________________________________________________________

Salaries and wages:

Interestingly, Alaska ranked number 1 in 1990 at an average wage of $29,946 per year, but dropped to 11 in 1999, although the actual wage increased to $34,000.
In 2000, the per capita income in Anchorage was $27, 852.


__________________________________________________________________________________
Average annual pay for selected states - year 1999

state ?????????????????????????? dollars ??????????? ranking
Delaware ???????????????????? 35,102 ??????????? 8
Alaska ????????????????????? 34,034 ????? 11
New Hampshire ????????? 32,139 ??????????? 17
Nevada ??????????????????????? 31,213 ??????????? 19
Vermont ????????????????????? 27,595 ??????????? 34
Wyoming ???????????????????? 25,639 ??????????? 44
Idaho ????????????????????????? 26,042 ??????????? 41
Montana ????????????????????? 23,253 ??????????? 49
------------------------------------


General Anchorage Area Demographics

Income and Poverty:
Median Household Income:?????????????? $ 55,546
Per Capita Income: ????????????????????????????? $ 25,287
Population in Poverty: ?????????????????????? 18,682
Percent in Poverty: ???????????????????????????? 7.4%

Employment:
Workforce ( Age 16 and over): ???????? 192,782
Civilian Employed: ????????????????????????????? 125,737
Military Employed:????????????????????????????? 8,503
Unemployed: ?????????????????????????????????????? 9,110
Not in Labor Force: ???????????????????????????? 49,432
Percent Unemployed: ???????????????????????? 6.8%
Percent Adults Not Working: ?????????? 30.4%

Civilian Employment:
Private Wage & Salary Workers: 89,023
Government Workers
(Military not included):?????????????????????? 27,646
Self-Employed workers
(in own not incorp business): ?????????? 8,819
Unpaid Family workers: ???? 249

Employment by Occupation:
Management, Professional & Related: 46,271
Service: ???????????????????????????????? 18,970
Sales & Office: ???????????????????????????????????? 35,834
Farming, Fishing & Forestry: ??????????? 432
Construction, Extraction

& Maintenance: ????????????????? 12,136

Product., Transport.

& Material Moving: ??????????????????????????? 12,094

Employment by Industry:

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing

& Hunting, Mining: ??????????????????????????? 3,886

Construction: ?????????????????????????????????????? 7,995
Manufacturing: ?????????????????????????????????? 2,542
Wholesale Trade: ??????????????????????????????? 4,428
Retail Trade: ???????????????????????????????????????? 15,327
Transport., Warehouse & Util.: ??????? 11,809
Information: ???????????????????????????????????????? 4,079
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
Rental & Leasing: ?????????????????????????????? 7,654
Professional, Scientific,

Management,
Administrative & Waste Mgmt: 12,845
Education, Health &

Social Services: ?????????????????????????????????? 24,532
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation & Food Services: 11,342
Other Services

(Except Public Admin):??????????????????????? 7,156
Public Administration: ?????????????????????? 12,142
-------------------------------------------------------


The following is a listing of salaries for the Anchorage area, where approximately 41% of the state population lives. This is probably a more useful set of numbers for people wanting to move into the state from the lower 48, since it represents a wide range of jobs and industries probably similar to work available out of state. I've edited a much more exhaustive list of job categories down to the most common and recognizable types. Even so it's lengthy. I hope the reader may find a listing similar to their present job in order to make the comparison more meaningful.

For the complete list see;
http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/wage/anchoes.htm.

_______________________________________________________________________
Average wages, per hour, for selected professions - Anchorage area - year 2000

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Mean ??????? Median ????? Mid Range Entry ??????? Experienced

Managers
Computer & Information Sys Managers 33.74 ?????? 32.35 ????????????????????? 25.06 - 40.18 ???????? 21.69 ????? 39.76
Construction Managers ???????????????????????? 38.83 ????? 37.39 ????????????????????? 29.83 - 46.58 ???????? 25.83 ????? 45.33
Education Admin, Postsecondary ?????????? 16.74 ????? 15.37 ????????????????????? 12.63 - 19.07 ???????? 12.03 ????? 19.10
Financial Managers ??????????????????????????????????????????????? 34.57 ????? 30.53 ????????????????????? 23.26 - 41.81 ???????? 20.49 ????? 41.61
Industrial Production Managers ??????????? 33.01 ????? 26.97 ????????????????????? 21.67 - 41.30 ???????? 19.65 ????? 39.69
Medical & Health Services Managers ???? 31.80 ????? 30.61 ????????????????????? 24.84 - 35.58 ???????? 21.59 ????? 36.91
Transport, Storage & Dist Managers ???? 26.96 ????? 25.29 ????????????????????? 20.12 - 33.04 ???????? 18.79 ????? 31.05

Business and Financial Operations
Accountants & Auditors ???????????????????????? 23.56 ????? 22.73 ????????????????????? 18.06 - 26.36 ???????? 15.85 ????? 27.41
Credit Analysts ????????????????????????????????????? 26.03 ????? 19.42 ????????????????????? 12.28 - 46.33 ???????? 10.56 ????? 33.76
Financial Analysts ????????????????????????????????? 26.59 ????? 26.18 ????????????????????? 23.10 - 30.26 ???????? 21.65 ????? 29.05
Insurance Underwriters ???????????????????????? 22.34 ????? 20.93 ????????????????????? 18.34 - 28.18 ???????? 16.57 ????? 25.22
Loan Officers ???????????????????????????????????????? 23.80 ????? 18.11 ????????????????????? 13.18 - 32.87 ???????? 11.11 ????? 30.14
Tax Examiners ??????????????????????????????????????? 27.94 ????? 28.54 ????????????????????? 20.81 - 34.11 ???????? 19.28 ????? 32.27
Training & Development Specialists ?????? 20.67 ????? 20.04 ????????????????????? 17.20 - 24.98 ???????? 14.68 ????? 23.66

Computer
Computer Programmers ???????????????????????? 27.00 ????? 26.21 ????????????????????? 22.32 - 31.92 ???????? 20.03 ????? 30.49
Software Engineers, Applications ????????? 28.78 ????? 28.50 ????????????????????? 23.61 - 33.58 ???????? 22.17 ????? 32.09
Software Engineers, Systems ????????????????? 31.10 ????? 32.51 ????????????????????? 22.74 - 40.16 ???????? 20.89 ????? 36.21
Database Administrators ?????????????????????? 26.79 ????? 26.24 ????????????????????? 18.86 - 34.19 ???????? 16.45 ????? 31.96
Network & Computer Systems Admin ???? 23.43 ????? 23.11 ????????????????????? 18.86 - 28.12 ???????? 16.99 ????? 26.65
Network Systems Analysts ???????????????????? 25.67 ????? 26.39 ????????????????????? 18.20 - 31.86 ???????? 16.70 ????? 30.16
Statisticians ?????????????????????????????????????????? 29.60 ????? 28.47 ????????????????????? 24.85 - 32.67 ???????? 23.38 ????? 32.71

Architectual
Architects, Except Landscape & Naval ?? 30.93 ????? 30.96 ????????????????????? 25.50 - 36.81 ???????? 22.98 ????? 34.91
Civil Engineers ?????????????????????????????????????? 31.46 ????? 30.58?????????????????????? 22.95 - 38.28 ??????? 20.92 ????? 36.73
Drafters, Engineer & Mapping Tech ?????? 20.46 ????? 19.52 ????????????????????? 15.53 - 24.32 ???????? 13.63 ????? 23.88
Electrical Engineers ??????????????????????????????? 32.52 ????? 33.27 ????????????????????? 27.04 - 39.45 ???????? 23.68
Mechanical Engineers ???????????????????????????? 31.51 ????? 31.79 ????????????????????? 25.00 - 38.95 ???????? 22.64 ????? 35.94
Petroleum Engineers ?????????????????????????????? 51.23 ????? 54.07 ????????????????????? 42.32 - 62.55 ???????? 36.98 ????? 58.36
Surveying & Mapping Technicians ???????? 22.33 ????? 23.18 ????????????????????? 17.98 - 28.42 ???????? 14.34 ????? 26.33

Life, Physical, and Social Science
Agricultural & Food Scientists ?????????????? 28.12 ????? 29.11 ????????????????????? 22.17 - 33.96 ???????? 19.45 ????? 32.46
Biological Technicians ??????????????????????????? 14.06 ????? 13.65 ????????????????????? 11.83 - 15.93 ???????? 11.16 ????? 15.52
Chemical Technicians ???????????????????????????? 16.18 ????? 14.52 ????????????????????? 10.47 - 21.90 ???????? 9.89 ??????? 19.33
Economists ???????????????????????????????????????????? 31.51 ????? 31.88 ????????????????????? 19.66 - 41.73 ???????? 17.83 ????? 38.35
Foresters ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 28.72 ????? 28.42 ????????????????????? 23.38 - 35.25 ???????? 21.29 ????? 32.43
Geological & Petroleum Technicians ????? 20.72 ????? 20.60 ????????????????????? 17.12 - 24.41 ???????? 14.76 ????? 23.70
Market Research Analysts ???????????????????? 21.92 ????? 21.44 ????????????????????? 18.25 - 25.10 ???????? 16.47 ????? 24.65

Community and Social Services Legal
Clergy ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 15.08 ????? 15.07 ????????????????????? 7.04 - 21.20 ?????????? 6.70 ??????? 19.28
Counselors, Social & Religious ?????????????? 13.70 ????? 12.83 ????????????????????? 10.87 - 15.47 ???????? 10.17 ????? 15.47
Mental Health Counselors ????????????????????? 17.83 ????? 17.07 ????????????????????? 15.26 - 20.22 ???????? 15.11 ????? 19.19
Arbitrators, Mediators ????????????????????????? 20.69 ????? 22.26 ????????????????????? 16.33 - 25.24 ???????? 14.35 ????? 23.87
Lawyers ????????????????????????????????????????????????? 43.03 ????? 41.56 ????????????????????? 29.38 - 58.76 ???????? 24.73 ????? 52.18
Paralegals & Legal Assistants ??????????????????????????????? 24.16 ????? 24.47 ????????????????????? 21.27 - 28.00 ???????? 19.08 ????? 26.70
Title Examiners, Abst & Searchers ???????? 18.22 ????? 18.69 ????????????????????? 14.89 - 21.04 ???????? 13.75 ????? 20.45

Education, Training, and Library
Education, Training & Lib Workers, ?????? 19.09 ????? 18.25 ????????????????????? 12.80 - 25.17 ???????? 12.50 ????? 22.39
Librarians ????????????????????????????????????????????? 21.81 ????? 23.20 ????????????????????? 17.72 - 27.74 ???????? 12.67 ????? 26.37
Postsecondary Teachers, All Other ?????? 49,020 ??? 49,310 ??????????????????? 40,690 - 55,980 ???? 35,160 ??? 55,950
Preschool Teachers, Except Spec Ed ?????? 10.16 ????? 10.10 ????????????????????? 9.10 - 11.25 ?????????? 8.54 ??????? 10.97
Teacher Assistants ???????????????????????????????? 25,600 ??? 26,330 ??????????????????? 18,330 - 30,940 ???? 17,360 ??? 29,710
Teachers, Primary, Sec & Adult ????????????? 39,560 ??? 41,050 ??????????????????? 20,870 - 53,980 ???? 18,060 ??? 50,310
Vocational Education Teachers, ???????????? 22.32?????? 24.17 ???????????????????? 18.06 - 27.12 ???????? 14.02 ????? 26.47

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Audio & Video Equipment Technicians ?? 11.93 ????? 11.71 ????????????????????? 10.25 - 13.05 ???????? 9.63 ??????? 13.08
Film & Video Editors ?????????????????????????????? 15.56 ????? 13.60 ????????????????????? 12.19 - 16.22 ???????? 12.10 ????? 17.29
Graphic Designers ????????????????????????????????? 17.97 ????? 16.96 ????????????????????? 12.53 - 22.55 ???????? 11.50 ????? 21.20
Photographers ?????????????????????????????????????? 12.92 ????? 12.76 ????????????????????? 11.10 - 15.28 ???????? 9.75 ??????? 14.50
Producers & Directors ?????????????????????????? 36,190 ??? 33,860 ??????????????????? 30,220 - 40,840 ???? 28,270 ??? 40,160
Public Relations Specialists ??????????????????? 24.44 ????? 21.69 ????????????????????? 16.95 - 27.66 ???????? 15.01 ????? 29.16
Technical Writers ?????????????????????????????????? 25.00 ????? 25.08 ????????????????????? 22.63 - 27.97 ???????? 21.69
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Dental Hygienists ?????????????????????????????????? 38.17 ????? 39.15 ????????????????????? 36.79 - 41.52 ???????? 37.64 ????? 38.44
Licensed Pract & Lic Voc Nurse ????????????? 16.30 ????? 15.93 ????????????????????? 14.53 - 17.59 ???????? 14.33 ????? 17.29
Medical & Clinical Laboratory Techn ???? 16.17 ????? 16.05 ????????????????????? 14.01 - 18.62 ???????? 13.46 ????? 17.53
Optometrists ????????????????????????????????????????? 46.99 ????? 48.92 ????????????????????? 44.83 - 52.70 ???????? 42.25 ????? 49.37
Pharmacists ?????????????????????????????????????????? 34.15 ????? 34.38 ????????????????????? 31.12 - 38.55 ???????? 30.40 ????? 36.03
Physicians & Surgeons, All Other ????????? 68.34 ????? >70.00 ?????????????????? >70.00 - >70.00 ??? 65.03 ????? 70.00
Veterinarians ???????????????????????????????????????? 30.82 ????? 28.34 ????????????????????? 18.66 - 37.30 ???????? 16.69 ????? 37.89

Protective Service
Protective Service Workers, Other ??????? 22.45 ????? 12.11?????????????????????? 9.80 - 44.63 ?????????? 9.40 ??????? 28.98

Food Preparation and Serving Related
Bartenders ???????????????????????????????????????????? 9.18 ??????? 9.24 ??????????????????????? 7.98 - 10.33 ?????????? 7.48 ??????? 10.03
Chefs & Head Cooks ?????????????? ??????????????? 14.95 ????? 13.38 ????????????????????? 11.60 - 16.83 ???????? 10.31 ????? 17.27
Cooks, Fast Food ??????????????????????????????????? 9.90 ??????? 9.82 ??????????????????????? 8.39 - 11.47 7.??????? 83??????????? 10.94
Counter Attend, Cafeteria/Food ??????????? 8.95 ??????? 8.14 ??????????????????????? 6.49 - 10.43 ?????????? 6.20 ??????? 10.33
Dishwashers??????????????????????????????????????????? 8.97 ?????? 8.89 ??????????????????????? 7.62 - 10.32 ?????????? 7.20 ??????? 9.86
Food Preparation & Serv Wkrs, ???????????? 17.67 ????? 21.84 ????????????????????? 9.17 - 24.51 ?????????? 8.00 ??????? 22.50
Waiters & Waitresses ???????????????????????????? 7.53 ??????? 6.58 ??????????????????????? 6.17 - 7.72????????????? 6.26 ?????? 8.16

Building and Grounds, Cleaning, and Maintenance
Janitors/Cleaners, Ex Maids ????????????????? 11.06 ????? 10.19 ????????????????????? 8.62 - 13.34 ?????????? 8.01 ??????? 12.58
Landscaping Workers ??????????????????????????? 11.54 ????? 10.51 ????????????????????? 8.55 - 13.23 ?????????? 7.88 ??????? 13.37
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners ??????????? 10.05 ????? 9.83 ??????????????????????? 8.77 - 11.01 ?????????? 7.96 ??????? 11.09

Personal Care and Service
Amusement & Recreation Attendants ???? 11.32 ????? 9.92 ??????????????????????? 8.38 - 12.83 ?????????? 7.78 ??????? 13.08
Baggage Porters & Bellhops ?????????????????? 10.16?????? 7.46 ?????????????????????? 6.42 - 10.96??????????? 6.33 ?????? 12.07
Flight Attendants ?????????????????????????????????? 32,970 ??? 30,640 ??????????????????? 21,930 - 37,790 ???? 19,170 ??? 39,880
Hairdressers, Hairstylists & Cosmet ????? 14.39 ????? 15.01 ????????????????????? 10.36 - 17.13 ???????? 8.93 ??????? 17.12
Recreation Workers ?????????????????????????????? 9.09 ??????? 8.48 ??????????????????????? 7.25 - 10.32 ?????????? 7.00 ??????? 10.13
Tour Guides & Escorts ??????????????????????????? 8.85 ??????? 8.61 ??????????????????????? 6.52 - 10.57 ?????????? 6.41 ??????? 10.07
Ushers, Lobby Attend & Ticket Takers ?? 6.92 ??????? 6.44 ??????????????????????? 6.11 - 6.79????????????? 6.28 ?????? 7.23

Sales and Related
Advertising Sales Agents ?????????????????????? 21.44 ????? 16.94 ????????????????????? 14.16 - 26.80 ???????? 12.10 ????? 26.11
Cashiers????????????????????????????????????????????????? 8.53 ?????? 8.14 ??????????????????????? 7.16 - 9.61 ???????????? 6.99 ??????? 9.31
Insurance Sales Agents ????????????????????????? 18.02 ????? 17.98 ????????????????????? 13.08 - 20.07 ???????? 12.34 ????? 20.86
Real Estate Sales Agents ???????????????????????? 23.35 ????? 23.35 ????????????????????? 18.79 - 30.31 ???????? 13.68 ????? 28.18
Retail Salespersons ??????????????????????????????? 12.18 ????? 10.60 ????????????????????? 8.34 - 13.38 ?????????? 7.72 ??????? 14.40
Telemarketers ??????????????????????????????????????? 8.52 ??????? 8.28???????????????????????? 6.95 - 9.66 ???????????? 6.69 ??????? 9.43
Travel Agents ???????????????????????????????????????? 11.77 ????? 11.34 ????????????????????? 9.73 - 13.36 ?????????? 9.19 ??????? 13.06

Office and Administrative Support
Bookkeeping, Account & Audit Clerks ?? 14.84 ????? 14.43 ????????????????????? 12.18 - 16.79 ???????? 11.21 ????? 16.66
Cargo & Freight Agents ???????????????????????? 11.18 ????? 10.41 ????????????????????? 9.11 - 12.71 ?????????? 8.61 ??????? 12.47
Couriers & Messengers ????????????????????????? 11.26 ????? 10.23 ????????????????????? 9.25 - 11.31 ?????????? 9.00 ??????? 12.39
Data Entry Keyers ????????????????????????????????? 10.83 ????? 10.12 ????????????????????? 8.89 - 12.06 ?????????? 8.31 ??????? 12.09
File Clerks ????????????????????????????????????????????? 11.56 ????? 11.47 ????????????????????? 9.19 - 13.70 ?????????? 8.26 ??????? 13.22
Hotel, Motel & Resort Desk Clerks ???????? 8.14 ??????? 7.81 ??????????????????????? 6.77 - 9.47 ???????????? 6.55 ??????? 8.94
Insurance Claims & Process Clerks ??????? 17.85 ????? 15.76 ????????????????????? 14.16 - 18.77 ???????? 13.55 ????? 20.00

Legal Secretaries ??????????????????????????????????? 19.01 ????? 19.28 ????????????????????? 15.92 - 22.11 ???????? 14.15 ????? 21.44
Medical Secretaries ??????????????????????????????????????????????? 13.27 ????? 13.20 ????????????????????? 11.86 - 14.99 ???????? 11.66 ????? 14.07
Office Clerks, General ??????????????????????????? 12.94 ????? 12.42 ????????????????????? 10.50 - 15.04 ???????? 9.36 ??????? 14.73
Secretaries, Except Legal, Med & Ex ?????? 14.60 ????? 13.82 ????????????????????? 11.65 - 17.51 ???????? 10.38 ????? 16.71
Stock Clerks & Order Fillers ????????????????? 12.58 ????? 11.55 ????????????????????? 9.18 - 15.43 ?????????? 8.57 ??????? 14.58
Tellers ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10.26 ????? 10.08 ????????????????????? 9.24 - 11.20 ?????????? 9.30 ??????? 10.74
Word Processors & Typists ??????????????????? 13.66 ????? 13.48 ????????????????????? 11.76 - 15.73 ???????? 11.14 ????? 14.92

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Farming, Fishing & Forestry Workers ??? 15.30 ????? 15.28 ????????????????????? 14.14 - 16.41 ???????? 13.36 ????? 16.27

Construction and Extraction
Brickmasons & Blockmasons ????????????????? 20.39 ????? 19.42 ????????????????????? 14.02 - 26.08 ???????? 11.87 ????? 24.65
Carpenters ???????????????????????????????????????????? 21.08 ????? 22.75 ????????????????????? 16.13 - 25.74 ???????? 13.92 ????? 24.67
Construction Laborers ?????????????????????????? 18.89 ????? 18.66 ????????????????????? 13.57 - 23.70 ???????? 11.76 ????? 22.45
Electricians ???????????????????????????????????????????? 28.07 ????? 29.68 ????????????????????? 24.10 - 33.21 ???????? 20.43 ????? 31.89
Plumbers, Pipefitters & Steamfitters ????? 26.32 ????? 26.97 ????????????????????? 22.27 - 31.99 ???????? 18.70 ????? 0.13
Roofers ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 21.64 ????? 22.34 ????????????????????? 17.45 - 27.23 ???????? 14.42 ????? 25.25
Structural Iron & Steel Workers ???????????? 19.33 ????? 20.46 ????????????????????? 14.36 - 24.64 ???????? 11.53 ????? 23.23

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Aircraft Mechanics & Serv Tech ???????????? 19.66 ????? 19.53 ????????????????????? 15.83 - 23.90 ???????? 14.32 ????? 22.33
Automotive Body & Related Repairers ?? 21.80 ????? 19.97 ????????????????????? 15.84 - 25.48 ???????? 13.50 ????? 25.95
Automotive Service Tech & Mech ?????????? 17.75 ????? 17.80 ????????????????????? 13.43 - 23.57 ???????? 10.58 ????? 21.34
Computer/Auto Teller/Office Mach Rep 19.60 ????? 19.77 ????????????????????? 14.70 - 24.79 ???????? 13.33 ????? 22.73
Heating/AC/Refrig Mech & Installers ??? 20.99 ????? 22.81 ????????????????????? 18.43 - 25.51 ???????? 14.34 ????? 24.32
Maintenance & Repair Workers, Gen ???? 18.00 ????? 17.52 ????????????????????? 12.35 - 22.72 ???????? 10.71 ????? 21.64
Telecomm Equip Install/Repair, ????????????? 28.76 ????? 29.93 ????????????????????? 25.74 - 33.00 ???????? 22.52 ????? 31.88

Production
Bakers ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10.63 ????? 10.40 ????????????????????? 8.67 - 12.47 ?????????? 7.96 ??????? 11.97
Cabinetmakers & Bench Carpenters ????? 14.89 ????? 14.07 ????????????????????? 11.62 - 18.47 ???????? 10.90 ????? 16.89
Helpers: Production Workers ???????????????? 17.82 ????? 16.49 ????????????????????? 12.15 - 24.22 ???????? 10.83 ????? 21.32
Machinists ????????????????????????????????????????????? 23.08 ????? 23.73 ????????????????????? 19.59 - 26.82 ???????? 17.31 ????? 25.97
Plant & System Operators, All Other ???? 20.04 ????? 22.33 ????????????????????? 16.61 - 25.10 ???????? 12.81 ????? 23.66
Production Workers, All Other ????????????? 10.66 ????? 9.49 ??????????????????????? 7.60 - 11.08??????????? 6.97 ?????? 12.51
Welders, Cutters, Solder & Brazers ?????? 21.19 ????? 20.13 ????????????????????? 16.07 - 26.18 ???????? 14.06 ????? 24.76

Transportation and Material Moving
Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors ??? 15.19 ????? 13.92 ????????????????????? 11.24 - 18.13 ???????? 10.58 ????? 17.49
Excavating & Loading Machine Opers ?? 12.97 ????? 12.75?????????????????????? 10.37 - 15.36 ??????? 9.47 ??????? 14.72
Laborers & Freight Movers ??????????????????? 13.51 ????? 11.64?????????????????????? 9.34 - 14.63 ????????? 8.44 ??????? 16.05
Packers & Packagers, Hand ?????????????????? 8.31 ??????? 6.84 ??????????????????????? 6.33 - 9.15 ???????????? 6.35 ??????? 9.29
Service Station Attendants ???????????????????? 10.75 ????? 8.93 ??????????????????????? 7.36 - 14.71 ?????????? 6.96 ??????? 12.64
Taxi Drivers & Chauffeurs ???????????????????? 9.99 ??????? 9.06 ??????????????????????? 7.58 - 11.87 ?????????? 7.26 ??????? 11.36
Truck Drivers, Tractor-Trailer ???????????? 18.78 ????? 17.54 ????????????????????? 14.66 - 24.03 ???????? 12.90 ????? 21.73
------------

Mean: is the estimated total wages for an occupation divided by its weighted survey employment. It is sometimes referred to as the "weighted average."

Median: Another "average" representing the value of the "middle" observation when the numbers are arranged from the smallest to largest. At that point, half of the employees in the occupation earn more and half earn less.

Middle Range: The middle 50% of wages. One-quarter of the workers in an occupation earn less than the low end of the range and one-quarter earn more than the high end of the range.

Mean Entry Wage: The mean wage of the first one-third or 33rd percentile of employees in the occupation (two-thirds earn more).

Mean Experienced Wage: The mean wage for the upper two-thirds or 67 percentile of employees in the occupation (one-third earn less).
-------------------

______________________________________________________________________________
Year 2000 data for top 100 employers in AK- this group represents 29% of all private sector wage and salary employees in Alaska--- 21% are non-profits;

company ?????????????????????????????? no. of employees
Safeway/Carrs ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3270
Providence Alaska medical center ?? 3098
Fred Meyer ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2146
Walmart/Sam's Club ?????????????????????????????????????????? 1911
Alaska Airlines ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1694
VECO Operations ??????????????????????????????????????????????? 1392
Alaska Petroleum Contractors ????????????????????????? 1314
Banner health system ???????????????????????????????????????? 1138
National bank of Alaska/Wells Fargo ???????????? 1118
Federal Express ?????????????????????????????????? 1113
NANA Marriot ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1093
BP Exploration ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1018
Alyeska pipeline service co. ???????????????????????????? 898
Alaska Communications Systems ??? 821
Alaska Regional Hospital ????????????????? 814
Phillips 66 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 805
Alaska USA Federal Credit Union ?? 800
GCI Communications ????????????????????????????????????????? 771
Laidlaw Transit ??????????????????????????????????? 745
First national bank of Anchorage ??? 745
Kmart ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 730
Sears Roebuck ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? 712
UniSea ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 687
Peak Oilfield Service Co. ??????????????????? 681

Southcentral Foundation ?????????????????? 675
Alaska Commercial Co. ????????????????????????????????????? 663
ERA Aviation ????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????? 658
Spenard Builders Supply ?????????????????? 658
Icicle seafoods ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 631
Costco ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 612

Tanana Chiefs Conference ??????????????????????????????? 594
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corp. ????? 593
North Pacific Processors ?????????????????? 582
Southeast AK Regional health Corp. ????????????? 578
Peter Pan Seafoods ???????????????????????????????????????????? 566
Anchorage Daily News?????????????????????????????????????? 520
Aramark Leisure Services ????????????????? 520
Doyon/Universal Ogden ?????????????????? 519
Nabors Alaska Drilling Co. ??????????????????????????????? 514
Williams Express ???????????????????????????????? 507
Westmark Hotels ??????????????????????????????????????????????? 506
Alyeska resort ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? 481
Valley hospital ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? 481
Unocal ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 477
Houston/NANA ???????????????????????????????? 468
Pizza Hut ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 467
Burger King ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 465
Norquest Seafoods ???????????????????????????????????????????? 464
Cominco Alaska ????????????????????????????????? 459
Hope Community Services ??????????????????????????????? 448
Maniilaq Association ???????????????????????????????????????? 446
AT&T Alascom Inc. ?????????????????????????????????????????? 426
Norton Sound health Corp. ?????????????????????????????? 412
UPS ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 398
Alaska Hotel properties ???????????????????? 398
Wards Cove packing Co. ?????????????????? 389
PenAir ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 387
The Alaska Club ???????????????????????????????? 386
Northwest airlines ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 382
AK Native Tribal health Consortium ?????????????? 381
Denali foods (Taco Bell) ??????????????????? 381
Chugach Elec. Assoc. ??????????????????????????????????????? 379
Cook inlet processing ??????????????????????????????????????? 378
Facility management of Alaska ???????????????????????? 374
Salvation Army - Alaska ??????????????????? 371
Tesoro Northstore Co. ?????????????????????????????????????? 367
Hilton Anchorage ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 360
Chugach North Techical Services ??? 354
Ketchikan General Hospital ?????????????????????????????? 348
Westward Seafood ???????????????????????????????????????????? 348
Hotel Captain Cook ??????????????????????????????????????????? 342
Assets, Inc. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 341
Ocean Beauty Seafooods ????????????????? 338
Bristol Bay Area health Corp. ?????????????????????????? 335
Royal Highway Tours ??????????????????????????????????????? 327
Sea-land Freight Service ??????????????????? 314
J C Penny Co. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 313
Silver Bay Lodging ???????????????????????????????????????????? 311
Anchorage Cold Storage ?????????????????? 305
Rural Alaska Community Action prog. ?????????? 299
Matanuska Telephone Association ??????????????? 296
Fairbanks Gold Mining Company ??? 291
Schlumberger Technologies ???????????????????????????? 289
Carlile Enterprises ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 285
Alaska Pacific University ????????????????? 281
Dynair Services ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 279
Sky Chefs ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 277
Fairbanks Native Association ????????????????????????? 273
ARC of Anchorage ???????????????????????????????????????????? 272
ABM Company of the West ???????????????????????????? 272
Northern Air Cargo ???????????????????????????????????????????? 267
Greens Creek Mining Company ??????????????????????? 264
Halliburton Energy Services ???????????????????????????? 263
McDonalds ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 258
Nordstrom ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 256
CIRI Alaska Tourism Corporation ??? 255
United Airlines ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 251
Udelhoven Oilfield Systems ????????????????????????????? 250
------------------------------------------------------------

Public Sector Employment
However, the following figures could be somewhat discouraging for those with desire for "small government"... If you count the public sector, several of the various branches of government fall within the Top 10 largest employers in Alaska. Significantly, the military and federal government are number one and two on the list! Most are centered in Anchorage, although the State government is located in Juneau and the University of Alaska is in Fairbanks.
___________________________________________________________________________________
year 2000 Top Ten employers including public sector

rank ? employer?????????????????????????????????????????? employees
1 ?????? Uniformed Military ?????????????????????????? 17,614
2 ?????? Federal government ??????????????????????? 17,139
3 ?????? State of Alaska ???????????????????????????????? 16,066
4 ?????? University of Alaska ????????????????????????? 6,112
5 ?????? Anchorage School District ??????????????? 5,954
8 ?????? Municipality of Anchorage ?????????????? 2,868
10 ???? Fairbanks North Star Borough

????????? School district?????????????????????????????????? 1,918
--------------------------------------------------


Unemployment:
According to the latest figures, the Alaska unemployment rate is comparatively high, but it's worth noting that 6% of a population of 627,000 is about 38,000 people, a much smaller actual number than states with higher populations but slightly lower unemployment rates. For instance, a state like Nevada with a population of 1,998,000 and with a slightly lower unemployment rate of 4.4% yields 88,000 people.
_____________________________________________________
Unemployment rate, comparison of selected states - year 1999

state ?????????????????????????? percent ?????????? ranking
Alaska ????????????????????? 6.4 ?????????? 2
Montana ????????????????????? 5.2 ????????????????? 6
Idaho ????????????????????????? 5.2 ????????????????? 6
Wyoming ???????????????????? 4.9 ????????????????? 12
Nevada ??????????????????????? 4.4 ????????????????? 21
Delaware ???????????????????? 3.5 ????????????????? 32
Vermont ????????????????????? 3.0 ????????????????? 40
New Hampshire ????????? 2.7 ????????????????? 49
----------------------------------------


Cost of Living
No getting around the fact that some living expenses are higher in Alaska. This can probably be largely attributed partly to the shipping costs of merchandise imported from out of state and perhaps the climate. People living in Anchorage spent about 41% more than the national average.
(The average household was comprised of 1.5 wage earners, and 2.6 persons, reporting a pre-tax income of $54,506.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Anchorage area consumer spending -
Percent distribution of total average expenditures in Anchorage, 1999-2000

Food ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 13.1%
Personal Insurance & pensions ?????????? 8.4%
Cash contributions ???????????????????????????? 3.5%
Entertainment ???????????????????????????????????? 6.4%
Healthcare ????????????????????????????????????????? 4.8%
Transportation ??????????????????????????????????? 18.5%
Apparel & % services ?????????????????????????? 4.7%
Housing ????????????????????????????????????????????? 33%
Other ????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7.6%

_________________________________________________________
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
U.S. City Average, All Items vs Anchorage, Alaska, All Items

year ???? U.S. average ??? Anchorage average
2001 177.1 ?????????????? 155.2

______________________________________________________
some examples - costs of selected goods, 2001;

??????????????????????? National average ??????? Anchorage

gallon of gasoline ?????? $1.52 ????????????????????????? $1.65

half gallon of milk ????? $1.68 ????????????????????????? $2.29

dozen large eggs ??????? $0.98 ????????????????????????? $1.53

quarter pounder ????????? $2.12 ????????????????????????? $2.87
with cheese

day rate semi-private $800. ????????????????????????? $493.
hospital room
_______________________________________________________

 

living expenses for a family of 4, selected western cities

National average $32,000 a year

 

Juneau? , AK????????????????? $38,076

Salt Lake City, UT???????? $35,262

Fairbanks, AK?????????????? $34,398

Anchorage?????????????????? $33,518

Boise, ID????????????????????? $32,142

Butte, MT???????????????????? $30,322

----------------------------------------

 


Housing:

Housing profile - Anchorage municipality - year 2000
Total household population 253,269 - with 100,368 housing units
52% were single units, 42 % multi-unit, and 6% mobile homes
(13% were built since 1990)
61% were owner occupied and 39% rental units

(oddly enough they keep figures on stuff like this, 0.7% lacked plumbing...I suppose that means you won't have to hunker down behind a bush on the tundra like you thought)

Median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was $1,447
non-mortgaged owners $406
renters $720

23% of owners had mortgages, 4% without
43% of renters spent 30% of their income on housing

Year 2001, median price for homes in Anchorage , $143,000.

National Association of Home Builders said in the first quarter of 2001, Anchorage emerged as the "most affordable" housing market west of Oklahoma City -- bettering all 46 other cities in 10 western states.

I highly recommend a short article on cost of living in Anchorage by George Bryson of the Anchorage Daily news, published Nov. 4, 2001, "City's Pricey Reputation Proves a Myth - Few taxes, affordable housing and the PFD make Anchorage a good deal "
In this article he basically makes the case that Anchorage is actually one of the most affordable cities to live if you factor in the lack of a state tax and the yearly "Permanent Fund" payments.

http://www.alaskapcs.com/ANCHORAGE%20COST%20OF%20LIVING.htm


The Permanent Fund;

Probably few people outside Alaska may have ever heard of the "Permanent Fund."

This is an annual dividend paid to each citizen of Alaska that comes from royalties on state natural resources (mostly oil), and a State managed investment fund. The amount fluctuates on a yearly basis, but for the year 2001, the payment was $1,850. per person.

A bit of history;
After becoming a state in 1959, the state constitution declared that all the natural resources of Alaska belong to the state.

In 1969 the Prudhoe Bay oil lease sale generated $900 million from oil companies for the right to drill oil on 164 tracts of state-owned land. (by comparison, the 1968 state budget was $112 million) The $900 million was spent on water and sewer systems, schools, airports, health and misc. social services.

In 1976 a constitutional amendment, specified that 25% of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments, etc. received would be placed in a "permanent fund," to be used for long term investment. The principal of the Fund is to be invested in perpetuity.

In 1980 the State Legislature decided to create a savings trust for the future. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation manages the assets of the Fund. The Legislature also created the "Permanent Fund Dividend Program" to pass on a portion of the investment income of the Fund to Alaskan citizens directly as a dividend payment. To be eligible you must be at least a one-year resident. Supposedly, the dividend amounts to more money in the state economy than the wages paid by basic industry, seafood, construction, tourism, timber, mining and agriculture combined. The dividend provides more than 10 percent of the income of most Alaskans. The fund is currently worth $26 billion and is mandated by law to be invested in a way that minimizes risk and expressly forbids "social' or "political" investing (which is encouraging).

The Left praises the fund as the ideal way to distribute a "fair and equal share of the wealth" from publicly owned resources to the citizenry. This might normally make a free market/private property oriented libertarian somewhat nervous. However, in my opinion, short of selling off the property, this is probably the fairest way to distribute a "commonly held resource"...especially that not previously owned by anyone (remember we're talking mostly frozen tundra here). This still leaves the question of who is granted the authority to decide what's a good investment, and this issue has been and is still debated. On a positive note, the fact that part of the money is more or less directly distributed to each citizen, leaving the decision up to them what to do with their share, is a step in the right direction. This somewhat decreases concentration of control of the resource by an entrenched government elite. The danger of course, is the precedent it sets. This system keeps alive the belief that government ownership of anything is a normal and beneficial circumstance. Perhaps more disturbing, public school officials apparently think it's necessary to indoctrinate young school children about the fund, stressing the "fairness" of the system.

Taxes:

Alaska currently has no state income or sales taxes.

50% of local governments have a sales tax up to 6 percent on retail sales, however, there is no retail sales tax in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
_______________________________________________________________________
Various Non-income Tax Sources in Alaska, 1999 figures -

732.6 million total

Property, Oil, gas
charitable gaming, Alcohol, tobacco
Insurance premiums electric, telephone motor fuel corporate income corporation petroleum severence, oil, gas
salmon and seafood marketing salmon enhancement fisheries business fishery resource, landing, mining, estate
---------------------------------------------------

Economic Data
I've included this information to emphasize the existing industries, infrastructure and business in Alaska. I believe this is a good indicator of a state's economic self sufficiency, especially if secession ever becomes a serious option. One huge factor in any evaluation of Alaska is its massive size and wealth of natural resources. The following list illustrates the type of services, retail and support industries that have come into existence over the last 40 years.
_____________________________________________________
Gross State Product, 26.4 billion, figures for year 1999 -
breakdown by sector

Government ??????????????????????????????????????? 19%
Oil, gas ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 18%
Transport, communications, utilities 17%
Services ????????????????????? ??????????????????????? 13%
Other goods ??????????????????????????????????????? 13%
Financial, insurance, real estate ????????? 10%
Trade ????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10%

______________________________________________________________________________
Alaska's world wide exports, $ 2.4 billion total, year 2000
Top exports in 2001 in millions of dollars

Seafood ?????????? $1,198 m
Minerals ????????? $329 m
Oil ?????????????????? $297 m
Fertilizer ???????? $190 m
Wood ????????????? $155 m
Other ????????????? $257 m

_______________________________________
Alaska export markets by percentage

country ???? energy ????? minerals ?? seafood ??? wood ??????????????? fertilizer
Japan ?????????????? 68 ?????????????????? 15 ?????????????????? 55 ?????????????????? 58 ?????????????????? -
Korea ????????????? 10 ?????????????????? 21 ?????????????????? 20 ?????????????????? 20 ?????????????????? 46
Singapore ??????? 5 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
China ????????????? 5 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 4 ???????????????????? 4 ???????????????????? -
Mexico ??????????? 3 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 25
Canada ??????????? 3 ???????????????????? 15 ?????????????????? - ???????????????????? 15 ?????????????????? 3
other ?????????????? 6 ????????????? 19 ?????????????????? 3 ???????????????????? 1 ???????????????????? 7
Belgium ?????????? - ???????????????????? 22 ?????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Netherlands ??? - ???????????????????? 8 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Germany ???????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 7 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Portugal ????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 2 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Norway ?????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 2 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Thailand ????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 1 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 9
France ???????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 1 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
UK ?????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 1 ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? -
Taiwan ??????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 2 ???????????????????? 7
Australia ???????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? - ???????????????????? 3
-------------------------------------------




________________________________________________________________________
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT - history, voter trends and groups sympathetic to FSP goals
________________________________________________________________________

A Short political history of Alaska -

27,000 BC humans cross Bering land bridge into new world
1741 Vitus Bering, Danish explorer working for Russia, first european to arrive in Alaska
1778 Capt. Cook sails into Cook Inlet, Anchorage, looking for north nest passage
1799 Alexander Barnov first Russian governor, in Archangel, near Sitka
1867 Alaska purchased from Russia by Secretary of State Seward, $7.2 mil
1867 -77 under jurisdiction of U.S. Army
1877-79 under jurisdiction of U.S. Treasury
1879-84 under jurisdiction of U.S. Navy
1884 designated as the District of Alaska with territorial governor
1897 The Alaskan gold rush
1906 Alaska given non-voting delegate in Washington
1912 Alaska becomes a territory
1935 "New Deal" relocates 200 familes to homestead and establish agriculture
1942 Japanese occupy Attu and Kiska islands during WW2
1957 oil discovered on Kenai penisula
1959 Alaska admitted as 49th state
1968 oil discovered at Pruhoe bay
1975 right to grow and smoke marijuana in privacy of home
1976 Permanent Fund created
1977 Alaska pipe line completed
1978 Dick Randolph of Alaska first elected Libertarian state legislator.
1984 Andre Marrou third Libertarian elected to the Alaska legislature.
1987 Libertarians nominate Ron Paul President, Andre Marrou Vice President.

1990 marijuana re-criminalized
1991 Governor Walter Hickel wins on Alaska Independence Party ticket
1998 medical marijuana legal

General Political assessment -
Significantly, Alaska has one of the lowest populations of the 50 states, if looked at in terms of population density it is the lowest, with something more than 600,000 people for 656,424 square miles (1.03 per square mile), with most of the population crowded into Anchorage and Fairbanks. The entire state has less people than the city of Baltimore.

______________________________________________________________________
Population ranking - year 2000

state ?????????????? total ??????????????? ranking

Wyoming ???????? 494 K ????????????? 50
Vermont ????????? 609 K ????????????? 49
Alaska ????????????? 627 K ?????????????? 48
Delaware ???????? 784 K ????????????? 45
Montana ????????? 902 K ????????????? 44
New Hamp.????? 1,236 K ?????????? 41
Idaho ????????????? 1,294 k ?????????? 39
Nevada ??????????? 1,998 K ?????????? 35

(various cities provided for comparison)
Washington DC 572 K
Baltimore ??????? 651 K
San Francisco ? 776 K
Chicago ????????? 2,896 K
Los Angeles ??? 3,695 K
New York City 8,008 K
----------------------------

Political breakdown;
Despite the fact that they elect a democrat governor once in a while, the state has a reputation for a conservative leaning, at least judging by election returns. The following figures give an indication of electoral trends;

2000 U.S. PRESIDENT / VICE PRESIDENT
Ballots Cast / Reg. Voters 287825 / 473648 60.77%
Total Votes 285560
--------------------------------------------
candidates party ???????????????????? votes ?????????????? percent

NADER/LaDUKE GRN ?????????????? 28747 ???????????? 10.07%
BUCHANAN/FOSTER REF ???????? 5192 ?????????????? 1.82%
BROWNE/OLIVIER LIB ????????????? 2636 ?????????????? 0.92%
Write-in Votes ??????????????????????? 1068??????????????? 0.37%
HAGELIN/GOLDHABER NAT ??? 919 ???????????????? 0.32%
PHILLIPS/FRAZIER CON ?????????? 596 ???????????????? 0.21%


BUSH/CHENEY REP ????????????????? 167398 ?????????? 58.62%
GORE/LIEBERMAN DEM ?????????? 79004 ???????????? 27.67%

--------------------------------------------------

However it's important to note that the single largest political classification in Alaska is "undeclared" at 161,000... the second largest group is Republicans at 113,000. It's hard to say exactly what this undeclared figure means. It could be a measure of 'frontier" independence, persons not wanting to be tied to any particular party, it might be that a large group of people are conflicted or inconsistent in their views, or it may simply be that a lot are willing to vote but won't bother join a party.

It is however, interesting to consolidate the smaller groups into broader categories.
Adding together;

Republican, Alaskan Independence and Libertarian voters yields 139,000 total.
Democrat, green and Republican Moderate yield 80,000 total.
Non partisan, Undeclared and "other' yield 231,000 total.

For all persons of known party affiliation, left to right (219K), Libertarians and AIP (26K) represent 12 %, significantly higher than the national average.

For this number of "undeclared voters" (231K), it might be safe to assume that at least 12% of the "undeclared" group is also of libertarian and/or AIP leanings, ...which would yield a total of 54,000 people for the whole state (450K)...? potentially, over twice the 20,000 FSP goal (and this number doesn't include sympathetic conservatives or other groups)
_____________________________________________________________
Break-down of voters by party;
TOTAL 450,141

Republican ??????????????? AK Independence ??????????????? Libertarian
113,380 ????????????????????? 18,554 ??????????????????????????????????? 7,234

Democrat ????????? Green ?????????????????????????????? Republican moderate
71,620 ??????????????????????? 4,764 ????????????????????????????????????? 2,872

Non partisan ???????????????????? Undeclared ??????????????????????? other
66,296 ??????????????????????? 161,035 ????????????????????????????????? 4,386
--------------------------------------------------
AK IND = Alaskan Independence Party
DEM = Alaskan Democratic Party
GREEN = Green Party of Alaska
LIBERT = Alaska Libertarian Party
REP= Republican Party of Alaska
REP MOD = Republican Moderate Party
OTHER = Other (belongs to group not recognized by the State of Alaska)
UNDECL = Undeclared (may belong to a party but voter doesnot wish to declare which one)
NON PAR = Non-Partisan (follows no party lines)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alaskan Libertarian party;
There 's a mixed record here. Alaska has had Libertarian state office holders, but at present, less than 2 percent of registered Alaskan voters are Libertarians (not much different than the national average). Significantly, in 1978 Dick Randolph of Alaska became the first elected Libertarian state legislator. In 1984 Andre Marrou became the third libertarian elected to the Alaska legislature, and in 1987 became Ron Paul's running mate.
Alaska has electoral classifications called "recognized political Party" and "limited political party." A "Limited" political party ceases to be recognized in the State of Alaska if its presidential candidate fails to receive at least 3% of the votes cast for President. "Recognized' status requires registered voters (or votes cast in a previous election) equal to at least 3% of the votes cast for Governor in the last election.

Currently one Libertarian holds public office in Alaska, 3 are running for office and one ran in 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________
History of "recognized" status - Alaska Libertarian Party

1976 - As a Limited Political Party, MacBride / Bergland (President / Vice President candidates) received 5.5% of votes cast for President, retaining Limited Political Party status.

1980 - As a Limited Political Party, Clark (presidential candidate) received 11.7% of votes cast for President, retaining Limited Political Party status.

1982 - Randolph / Thompson (Governor / Lt. Governor candidates) received 14.9% of votes cast for Governor, establishing Recognized Political Party status.

1984 - Bergland / Lewis (President / Vice President candidates) received 3.07% of the votes cast for President, retaining Limited Political Party status.

1986 - As a Recognized Political Party, O?Brannon / Barnes (Governor / Lt. Governor candidates) received 0.5% of votes cast for Governor, losing Recognized Political Party status.

1987 - Legal opinion established that even though they had lost their status as a Recognized Political Party, they kept their status as a Limited Political Party.

1988 - As a Limited Political Party, Paul / Marrou (President / Vice President candidates) received 2.7% of the votes cast for President, losing their Limited Political Party status.

10/9/92 - Limited Political Party petition certified

1992 - Marrou / Lord (President / Vice President candidates) received 0.5% of votes cast for President, losing Limited Political Party status.

12/19/95 - Limited Political Party petition certified

l996 - Browne / Jorgensen (President / Vice President candidates) received 0.9% of votes cast for President, losing Limited Political Party status.

1997 - Limited Political Party petition certified for 2000 elections

8/99 - Recognized Political Party status achieved by having at least 3% of the registered voters claiming affiliation with the Libertarian Party.

2000 - Browne / Olivier (President / Vice President candidates) received 0.9% of the votes cast for President, losing Limited Political Party status.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska Independence Party -

This is without a doubt the most intriguing thing about Alaska politics... The Alaska Independence party has roughly twice the membership of the libertarian party and is? dedicated to a number of political reforms aimed at strengthening Alaska's autonomy and protecting their citizens' freedom... and ultimately leading to political independence and secession.

In a sense, they are the Alaskan FSP and share many of the same goals....the main difference is, they're already convinced Alaska is the place to do it. In many ways they remind me of the pre-revolutionary American colonists; still part of the mother country, but forming their own identity and priorities and increasingly resentful of a distant, heavy handed government that looks upon their home as little more than a source of raw materials.

They appear to be an amalgam of libertarian, conservative and populist ideas, combined with great concern over local issues like resource use and government reform. They definitely have an "Alaska first" mentality, strongly identifying with their local culture and circumstances, with acute resentment toward interference by the Federal government.

Their main issue is self determination. A vote was held in 1958 giving Alaska the right to either become a state, remain a territory, or become a commonwealth. The AIP believes that United Nations resolutions on the right to self-determination meant that they should have been given the right to choose independence. Therefore, they favor a new referendum including independence as an option.

AIP was formed in the 70's by a Joe Vogler, who early on advocated an independent nation of Alaska. They actually had an elected governor in 1990, even if his term was somewhat controversial (Hickle, a former republican and Nixon Secretary of the Interior). Party membership stands at about 4% and comes from mostly rural districts in the central region. In some precincts their membership is as high as 24%.

The AIP platform;
_____________________________________________________________________________________
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
1 To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
2 To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
3 To support the liberalization of initiative and referendum procedures to hold legislatures accountable to the will of the people.
4 To call and convene a State Constitutional Convention to address the flaws in the existing State Constitution.
5 To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
6 To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
7 To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
8 To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.
9 To oppose with rare exception, any secret activities or expenditures of funds of any government agency, state, federal or international.
10 To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
11 To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
12 To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
13 To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
14 To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
15 To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
16 To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children and to provide them individually the right to access to a proportional share of all money provided for educational purposes as an unrestricted grant for such purposes.
17 To support the privatization of government services.
18 To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
19 To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
20 To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.
21 To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOAL
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory. 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status. 4) Become a State, equal to the original 13.The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________

A final comment; AIP has many ideas and goals in common with FSP. However, if FSP ever chose Alaska, it's a pretty safe bet the relationship would be one where they would expect FSP to join them. One particular difference worth noting is, AIP prides itself on refusing contributions from out of state... one of their main principles is "Alaska for Alaskans." In contrast, FSP's operating strategy is to organize like-minded individuals nationwide and gather them in one location. In my opinion, AIP needs an influx of people from out of state willing to embrace Alaska as their future home. In a state with significant percentage of the population working for the government, or receiving some form of public subsidy, AIP will never attain the numbers it needs to dominate the political landscape without financial support and immigration from outside of the state. FSP and AIP working together are likely to achieve the common goals shared by both groups.


Alaskan laws and key indicators ?

( note; the author is not specifically endorsing or opposing any of the following laws ? they are presented here in order to provide a basis for judgment of the current political climate )

-Gun laws

-Concealed permits ? recently recognized out of state permits

-Shall issue must carry permit, 5 yrs, $200 ? notify officer when carrying, cannot carry to school, courts, liquor store, etc.

-? strong right to keep and bear arms article in state constitution.

- unlicensed concealed carry Ok for hunting, camping, hiking, etc.

- record of sale, yes ? no state registration ? no license/permit to buy ?

- no state waiting period

- ordinary laws like, illegal to discharge firearms from car, or in reckless disregard to property damage and injury to persons

 

Drug decriminalization

-1975 law permitted adults to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana (under 4 oz) ? overturned in 1990 54.3% to 45.7%.

-1998, medical use of marijuana legalized

-2000, Measure 5, defeated, 61% to 39% - would have regulated marijuana like alcohol, ending penalties for use and cultivation by adults,? also legalized use of industrial hemp

 

Taxes and Permanent Fund

- no state income tax, but various other business taxes and fees

- Permanent fund provides investment dividends to all residents

 

- Property issues

- no homesteading since 1986

- More than 75% of the Federal land in Alaska closed to mining due to being located in National Parks, Preserves, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, or other

 

 

 

- 66% of land is owned by the Federal government, not only one of the highest percentages among the states, but largest in actual acreage

- complaints about restrictions on natural resource land use and lack of roads into many areas

 

-Welfare spending;

ranks number 3 in nation at $1073 spent per capita on welfare payments (1997)

 

Abortion;

-laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion

-minor requires parental consent

-no waiting period but informed consent

-permit certain medical personnel, health facilities, to refuse to participate in abortion on the basis of conscience or religious conviction

-no laws specifically prohibiting clinic blockades and harassment?

-no laws requiring spousal consent or notice

-no laws to prevent state personnel from counseling or giving abortion referrals

-no laws prohibiting the use of public facilities for abortion

-public funding permitted in most or all circumstances

 

School Vouchers ;

-Alaska currently has charter schools but no vouchers

-various republican politicians? have pushed for the issue in recent years ?

-1976, vouchers voted down,? 54% against,? 46% for

 

Gay issues

-Sodomy laws repealed in 1980

-no municipalities offer domestic partner benefits in Alaska.

-no law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

-1998, constitutional amendment bans marriage for same-sex couples

- hate crimes law does not include sexual orientation

 

Misc. laws;

-One regulation says no motorcycle helmets required, another says ?headgear? is required on public roads

-mandatory seat belt laws including back seat occupants and child restraints

- emissions testing for vehicles

 

-law protecting privacy of public library user's records

 

-laws that protect patient access to alternative therapies from licensed physicians

 

-1985 legalized ferret ownership

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Article I of Alaska State Constitution; Declaration of Right

 

SECTION 1. INHERENT RIGHTS. This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

 

SECTION 2. SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.

 

SECTION 3. CIVIL RIGHTS. No person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section.

 

SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

 

SECTION 6. ASSEMBLY; PETITION. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government shall never be abridged.

 

SECTION 7. DUE PROCESS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.

 

SECTION 8. GRAND JURY. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the armed forces in time of war or public danger. Indictment may be waived by the accused. In that case the prosecution shall be by information. The grand jury shall consist of at least twelve citizens, a majority of whom concurring may return an indictment. The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.

 

SECTION 9. JEOPARDY AND SELF-INCRIMINATION. No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. No person shall be compelled in any criminal proceeding to be a witness against himself.

 

SECTION 10. TREASON. Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

 

SECTION 11. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of twelve, except that the legislature may provide for a jury of not more than twelve nor less than six in courts not of record. The accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be released on bail, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

SECTION 12. CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Criminal administration shall be based upon the following: the need for protecting the public, community condemnation of the offender, the rights of victims of crimes, restitution from the offender, and the principle of reformation.

 

SECTION 13. HABEAS CORPUS. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or actual or imminent invasion, the public safety requires it.

 

SECTION 14. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and other property, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

SECTION 15. PROHIBITED STATE ACTION. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. No law impairing the obligation of contracts, and no law making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

 

SECTION 16. CIVIL SUITS; TRIAL BY JURY. In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law. The legislature may make provision for a verdict by not less than three-fourths of the jury and, in courts not of record, may provide for a jury of not less than six or more than twelve.

 

SECTION 17. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. There shall be no imprisonment for debt. This section does not prohibit civil arrest of absconding debtors.

 

SECTION 18. EMINENT DOMAIN. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.

 

SECTION 19. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

 

SECTION 20. QUARTERING SOLDIERS. No member of the armed forces shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner or occupant, or in time of war except as prescribed by law. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

 

SECTION 21. CONSTRUCTION. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not impair or deny others retained by the people.

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section.

 

SECTION 23. RESIDENT PREFERENCE. This constitution does not prohibit the State from granting preferences, on the basis of Alaska residence, to residents of the State over nonresidents to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

SECTION 24. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. Crime victims, as defined by law, shall have the following rights as provided by law: the right to be reasonably protected from the accused through the imposition of appropriate bail or conditions of release by the court; the right to confer with the prosecution; the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness during all phases of the criminal and juvenile justice process; the right to timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the accused; the right to obtain information about and be allowed to be present at all criminal or juvenile proceedings where the accused has the right to be present; the right to be allowed to be heard, upon request, at sentencing, before or after conviction or juvenile adjudication, and at any proceeding where the accused's release from custody is considered; the right to restitution from the accused; and the right to be informed, upon request, of the accused's escape or release from custody before or after conviction or juvenile adjudication.

 

SECTION 25. MARRIAGE To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

 

_____________________________________
Geopolitical factors
_____________________________________

In respect to sheer size and amount of natural resources, Alaska could easily be its own self sustaining country. It's the largest state in the union with a total area of 656,000 square miles, the next largest state being Texas at 268,000 square miles. Currently, approximately 68% of this land is "owned" by the state and federal government. Population density is the lowest of all the states being somewhere around one person per square mile. It's worth stressing that like Hawaii, Alaska is physically separate from the rest of the United States which affords a certain cultural and psychological distance. It is separated from the ?mother land? by Canada and pacific coastal waters. Technically, Alaska territory is geographically closer to Russia than the lower 48 states.

At 5, 580 miles, Alaska has a larger total coastline than both the east and west coasts of the lower 48 states combined, and possesses 9 major ports. Valdez ranks as the nation's 10th largest port in terms of cargo shipped. It also ranks as the 4th largest oil port in the nation. Dutch harbor is the nation's largest port serving the commercial fishing industry.

Anchorage airport is the nation's top international hub for air freight? moving between Europe, Asia and the U.S. The recently opened over-the-pole air routes to Asia and Europe have cut down the number of passenger flights, however Anchorage is still one of the top 5 busiest air cargo airports in the world. Anchorage is less than 9 hours from most of the industrialized world, functioning as a re-fueling pit stop.

Oddly there is no direct road or rail system connecting Juneau (the state capital located in the southern panhandle), and the rest of state. However, the Alaska highway runs through Canada and ultimately connects to the lower 48.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________
Future relations with the Federal government and the other States of the Union
________________________________________________________________________

Inevitably questions come up about the Free State's future relationship with the Federal government, especially in relation to issues of sovereignty. The same issues will arise for any state, but there are special circumstances worth noting about Alaska.

 

Oil reserves;

 

Of late there has been a debate about whether there should be oil drilling in ANWR. ANWR represents in miniature what is likely to become a firestorm of debate over who controls what resources if Alaska ever moved toward independence. The U.S. imports about 55% of the oil it needs, half of that from OPEC countries. The U.S. consumes about 25% of global oil production, but only owns about 3% of known reserves. 80% of known oil reserves are in the Mideast. Crude oil production in the lower 48 states for the year 2000 was 4.9 million barrels per day, and slightly less than 1 million MnB/d from Alaska. Between 1973 and the present, oil imports from the Mideast have risen by 2/3rds. The point in all these figures is, the U.S. continues to use more oil every year, even as the resources diminish... the U.S. government would never let a resource of that magnitude slip through its fingers.

 

There are several possible scenarios to consider;

 

1) the government of Alaska changes, but business relationships stay the same. The same oil companies continue to pump the same oil fields and the same oil is shipped to the U.S.? Currently there is a debate about whether any U.S. oil should be exported - approximately 7% of Alaskan crude is shipped to Asia. The U.S. government would likely insist that present levels of oil production be guaranteed to the U.S. in the future

 

2) it's possible that current oil fields could be granted to the U.S. on a "hundred year lease" In effect ANWR and the "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska" would continue to be owned by the Federal government. The question is whether Alaska would be deprived of any economic benefit beyond providing local services to the industry.

 

3) It's also quite possible that the U.S. would simply carve out the oil reserves and retain them as territories without regard to negotiation with the nation of Alaska. With serious talk of "taking over" mideast oil fields, there is little doubt that many in the lower 48 would view this as both practical and justified.

 

National Parks

 

While it may be hard for a libertarian to understand that this could seriously be debated, the issue of who actually owns Alaska pertains not only to oil, but wildlife reserves, national parks and ecosystems. To put it bluntly, many in the lower 48 think that they "own" Alaska as much, if not more than the people that live there. This is not only the mindset of government bureaucrats, but many people that regard themselves as "environmentalists." There is an increasingly worrisome mindset among eco-nuts that is likely to create a problem for Alaskan independence. Many in this category openly profess a leftwing "global citizen" bent... they are not only hostile to the concept of individual property rights and private business,? but may even scorn national sovereignty in favor of internationalist/UN control of "natural areas." The same mindset can be observed operating within the U.S., again, well illustrated by the ANWR debate. Often portrayed as a sort of pristine Yellowstone of the north, there is a call by many environmentalists to "protect" an area that is essentially an uninhabited, barren, flat wasteland. In essence they want to keep all of Alaska untouched like some sort of "Pleistocene Park." If this frozen swamp is debated so hotly, imagine the protest over? letting a bunch of "extremist"? "nature raping" libertarians take over Denali. I recall seeing a news report once concerning the issue of allowing the wolf hunting in Alaska. For some reason they were driven to get a "man on the street" opinion from a woman in New York City. Her opinion was as enlightening as it was disturbing... she expressed outrage over the hunting and said that she, as a New Yorker, owned Alaska as much as the people that lived there and thus had a say in such things. While the hubris was astounding, this anecdote illustrates the resistance FSP would likely encounter simply based on "environmental protection" issues. That an urban dweller living over 3000 miles away, has as much "right" to create and impose law over the people that actually live and work in Alaska, is the core of the resentment so many Alaskans feel toward the lower 48. But, this "protecting nature" posturing is likely to be used as another justification of why Alaskans couldn't be "trusted" with their own land. If push came to shove, it would probably be desirable to carve out and relinquish chunks of territory like Denali to the Fed's in order to remove it as a contested issue.

Percentage of Federally Owned Land

 

Vermont, ???????????????????? 7%

West Virginia ????????????? 7%

New Hampshire ????????? 13.2%

Hawaii ???????????????????????? 16%

Delaware ???????????????????? 19%

Wyoming, ??????????????????? 49%

Oregon, ?????????????????????? 60%

Idaho, ???????????????????????? 62%

Utah, ?????????????????????????? 64%

Alaska ???????????? 66%

Nevada??????????????????????? 82%

-------------------------------------

 

 

Military presence

 

The single biggest employer in the state is the military at over 17,000, and this is just counting "uniformed" personnel... it doesn't even include support services provided by civilians. The early warning radar system (DEW) was deployed in Alaska in the 60's to detect a possible Soviet bomber and missile attack. Ground based radar and interceptors are still stationed there, although since the reduction in tensions between the Russia and the U.S. there has been a progressive decline in the number of personnel stationed there.? The primary role for Alaska is as a staging ground for possible force projection? into the pacific and Asia. As such, the U.S, would never give up access to those bases. Of course, even secession wouldn't necessarily mean cutting off military cooperation with U.S. Such a relationship would be necessary for the defense of Alaska in the foreseeable future as the Nation of Alaska couldn't deploy a credible military defense by itself. There isn't any reason to doubt that U.S. military bases could (or should) continue to operate there just as they do in other European and Asian countries, although the nature of such alliances would have to be carefully thought out. There is the possibility that current military bases would simply continue to be owned outright by the U.S. just as Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

 

Partitioning Alaska

 

As was stated earlier, there may be a rationale for ceding pieces of Alaskan territory to the U.S. government for oil, natural resource and military issues, as the main issue for Alaskan independence is not acquiring huge tracts of land, but political autonomy. For instance, as was already mentioned, the oil fields of the far north would probably have to be surrendered, as might certain nature reserves. It would not be necessary for the Nation of Alaska to keep control of the Aleutian chain, although that represents a military asset to the U.S. If certain areas, Kodiak Island for instance, wanted to stay within the U.S, we would of course, never stand in their way, as we support self determination for everyone. The same thing might go for certain Native American villages and corporations, they might feel they'd get a better deal staying with the U.S. as a protectorate.

 

The best scenario might be to encourage the "pan-handle"? to remain with the U.S. as the State of Alaska. This might be highly desirable for two reasons. Imagine the controversy and embarrassment over having part of the United States leave the union (we know what happened last time). Funny as it sounds to say, think about the symbolic act of having to change the flag of the U.S. back to 49 stars... the political and historical? humiliation that would represent. It might be desirable to allow the Feds to "save face" by allowing them to keep a certain chunk of land that still fulfills the role of being the 50th state. The "pan handle" is almost perfectly designed for such a purpose. The capital of the state is located there in Juneau, probably chosen because it was the closest spot to the lower 48. However, oddly enough, there is no direct road or rail connection to the rest of the state. Transportation in and out is mostly by air, although cruise ships frequent the area. Juneau can be reached by roads into Canada, but for all intents and purposes they are geographically isolated from the rest of Alaska by a narrow band of impassable mountains (would that we were all so lucky with our state capitals) They actually considered using nuclear weapons to blow a pass through the area in the 60's but gave up the idea as impractical. I mentioned that the seat of state government is located there. Such a ceding of the pan-handle would also provide a very convenient and easy excision of a cyst of government employees and infrastructure, the single strongest coalition likely to resist secession or even simple libertarian reform of government.

August 28, 2002

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.

State Data

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

Archives

FSP Archives


This section contains an archive of old web pages, that are probably out-of-date, but may still be of some limited value.

The main sections are currently:


NOTE: Some older links might no longer work.