Six Myths of the Perceived Lower Population Advantage
Karl Beisel
Washington, DC
Introduction
Some FSP members have stated that population is the single most important factor in state choice. Indeed it is – this is why states like California, Texas or Florida, all with very high populations, have been eliminated from consideration at the FSP’s inception. However, population becomes less and less important as it drops. The difference between a state with 500,000 people and one with 1.5 million people, in terms our ability to exert political influence, is not significant once we consider mitigating factors and debunk the myths surrounding this population’s importance, as I now argue.
The Six Myths
Myth #1
In a lower-population state, we can outvote native residents.
Truth: Assuming that all porcupines register to vote, the lowest population state, Wyoming, will have approximately 223,000 registered voters. In order to outvote them in state-wide elections, we would need at least 111,500 of us.
Myth #2
We can make up for the needed votes because the native populations of the most "libertarian" states will embrace our agenda.
Truth: The population at large in all free state candidates are openly hostile to many key portions of our agenda. In order to counter this hostility in the lowest population state, Wyoming, we'll need 91,500 natives to vote with us.
For our most important reforms, these additional votes probably do not exist. For example, in 1994, Wyoming voters rejected 137,397 to 61,980 a ballot initiative to decriminalize gambling. Even with 20,000 additional “YES†votes, the measure would have still failed by a wide margin. (Source:
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/initref.htm)
I expect at least similar levels of opposition to other victimless crime laws, such as narcotics use and prostitution, in all of the candidate states.
Myth #3
In lower-population states, we'll be able to influence others more effectively.
Truth: This myth is often expressed in terms of activist-to-voter ratios. In Wyoming (213,000 voters), that ratio is 1:11. In New Hampshire (567,000 voters), that ratio is 1:28. So, as the theory goes, each person would in effect be “assigned†to sway at least 6 voters in Wyoming, or 14 in New Hampshire.
This theory is in error for two reasons. First, it assumes that all other mitigating factors, such as electoral accessibility, are equal between states. Second, it suggests that 6 people are easier to sway than 14. If political activism were purely a door-to-door affair, this would be true. Yet, most political influence occurs through mass campaigning: letters-to-the-editor, newspaper articles, television and radio ads, flyers, political rallies, or simple party affiliation, or through network campaigning by voters talking with friends and family. Indeed, political influence with the vast majority of voters is only rarely a direct face-to-face affair.
For evidence of this fact, simply ask yourself this question: How many political candidates have you voted for that you have actually talked to prior to the election?
Myth #4
Porcupines will almost always agree and vote as a bloc; we can at least rely on 20,000 favorable votes.
Truth: There are three reasons why we might not rely on all 20,000 porcupine voter bloc 100% of the time:
Porcupines are a diverse group, and do not always agree on every issue.
Some porcupines may vote for someone other than the designated "pro-liberty" candidate for other reasons, such as a perceived ethical/moral lapse, ineffectiveness, or just plain kookiness.
Some porcupines do not vote as a matter of principle.
Myth #5
A lower-population is always more desirable.
Truth: Lower populations typically mean smaller economies. With smaller economies, there are fewer jobs, fewer locally-based business opportunities, and fewer opportunities for highly specialized professions and niche businesses. While a strong economic base is not directly relevant to our goals, it is very important in ensuring that porcupines can become and remain prosperous during our efforts, which are likely to be ongoing for many years or decades.
Myth #6
By moving strategically into the state, we can gain a significant minority in the state house and majorities in the selected local municipal governments.
Truth: This theory holds that a centrally-planned moving strategy will designate certain voting districts as porcupine settlements, directing a certain number of porcupines to those districts, thus guaranteeing State House seats with porcupine votes alone.
Strategic migration is an iffy proposition at best. Already, 20,000+ people have committed to uprooting their lives and moving to a single state. It seems doubtful that even a majority of movers will allow their settlement choices be further limited, thereby limiting employment, housing and lifestyle options.
Also, by failing to integrate with the population at large, we are unlikely to shed our image as outsiders, with untold political, legal, social and economic impacts.
Conclusion
If population alone is a poor predictor of our success, what strategy can we use?
Get libertarians elected – and re-elected!
To do this, we must choose a state that:
Gives us the best opportunities for gaining political experience.
Gives us the best opportunities to gain seats in local and state-wide elected offices.
Has a strong culture of political tolerance for controversial ideas.
Gives us the best opportunities to prosper economically during the years or decades of our effort.
Also see:
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/20000nh.php
"In addition, a multitude of institutional advantages seem to outweigh the population problem. First, New Hampshire has a large state house, the third largest legislature in the English-speaking world.
Low district size means that outsiders and independents can win elections by running a good campaign. For example, several Libertarian Party legislators won election to the NH House in the 1990's. The $100 per year salary for NH House representatives ($200 for state senators) ensures that career politicians do not dominate the legislature. The practice of fusion voting, rare in the U.S., allows politicians to run for election with multiple party endorsements, making it easier for third parties to win votes. Biennial elections for all state elective offices ensures strict popular control of government. Despite the fact that New Hampshire has no initiative and referendum process, the ease of getting on the ballot combined with biennial elections for every state office means that virtually every statewide election is a referendum on the policies of the incumbent government. Another institutional advantage is the aforementioned strength of town government. Schooling is an important policy area that activists can change at the local level in New Hampshire. The state constitution forbids unfunded state mandates on local government."
And: (contrary to popular opinion)
Massachusetts Immigrants Keeping New Hampshire Conservative
dems who move because the taxes here impact their incomes as they try for
