Those who advocate geographically smaller states because they make statewide campaigning easier should also note that what small state geography does for us, it will also do for our opposition. If it is easier for us to bus people to a rally that is only an hour away, opposition forces will be able to do the same. Geographically larger states make impromptu traveling more prohibitive.
And again, I would maintain that there is very little reason for any of us, other than candidates for statewide offices, to have to do any extensive traveling on anything resembling a regular basis.
I'll also ask the reader to consider an idea that may not seem overly obvious at first, but is worthy of our consideration nonetheless:
It may not be so much of a good idea for all of us to be able to congregate over a small area when we begin to think about more long-term political arrangements.
Those of us who subscribe to a Jeffersonian point of view are firm believers in decentralization, and we can see evident examples of how centralization has been responsible for much of the collapse of liberty in the United States. These are lessons that we fail to learn at our own peril! What is simpler to consolidate is usually simpler to corrupt.
Yes, we certainly want to be able to get together for certain events and to support one another in various ways; however, I believe it may be for the best if our post-FSP organizations are kept local in nature, and are subject only to a loose confederation. Cheyenne-area porcupines could certainly cooperate with Casper or Laramie or Sheridan-area porcupines where and when the situation called for it, but, other than on those occasions, we would operate independently within our own spheres of influence.
Under this sort of arrangement, it would be much more difficult for dominating personalities or core groups to obtain control of the entire movement and bend it to their will. It would also be much more difficult for opposition groups to paint us as a statewide special interest group, or to tar and feather the lot of us with the indiscretions of a few of us. Maintaining a more local emphasis will also go further in promoting our acceptance among the locals. They are not likely to be so receptive to us if they think we're just the closest branch of a group entity.
For these reasons, I say that a little distance between our groups can be a healthy thing. Loose confederation is preferable for our long-term well being.
One other consideration...
Wyoming's clustered population will allow the FSP to concentrate most naturally and effectively in Wyoming, as compared to states that will require a more strategic approach in order for us to succeed. What do I mean by this?
In the beginning, most of us will probably settle in the more urban areas of a given state because there is simply more available there than elsewhere in terms of jobs and housing. Well, it's a good idea if such areas also afford us greater access to the political system, so that we reap the benefits of being able to live and work in places that are also more expedient for activist functions.
In particular, I think it would be better for us to position ourselves where we would have influence over the greatest number of legislative districts because winning a majority of districts is how we will win a majority in the legislature. The key factor in the higher population areas of a state is that there are usually more legislative districts in those areas because of the greater number of people. Thus, if we are locating in and around such areas, we would have a greater chance of influencing who sits in the legislature.
The problem is that we should not be spread out over too many major population centers because that would dilute our influence among too many people. Wyoming and Alaska stand out strongly here. In Wyoming, we would naturally settle in the Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie area, which is where the majority of the opportunity is located. However, this is also where the majority of Wyoming's population and legislative districts are to be found. Thus, if we chose Wyoming, we would be choosing a state where we would naturally settle where we would have the most potential political influence, particularly since Cheyenne is the state capital. The same thing would hold true for Alaska since most of us would settle in either the Anchorage or panhandle areas, which is where the people, the housing, the jobs, and the most districts are as well.
Again, the key would be not spreading ourselves too thin, and I believe that states like Wyoming and Alaska protect us there because both states have only a couple of major population centers. There would be little to worry about in terms of spreading ourselves too thin.
States like Wyoming that facilitate a more natural migration are most likely to succeed (as long as there are no other major interfering factors) because one factor that we will have the least control over is where people choose to live. We can always make recommendations, but people who are flexible enough to move across the country may prove rather inflexible over where they finally settle, particularly given spousal input. Thus, states that require more of a strategic or "smart" approach to migration in order to succeed are, in my opinion, less likely to succeed.
Wyoming's population clusters would naturally attract our migrants to those locations where our activism would be most needed and effectual.