Wyoming - 364,909
Alaska - 436,215
Vermont - 461,304
North Dakota - 481,351
South Dakota - 552,195
Delaware - 589,013
Montana -672,133
Idaho - 924,923
New Hampshire - 926,224
Maine - 973,685
There are, I believe, legitimate concerns that the FSP will either not attract 20,000, all 20,000 might not move, and that the dreaded "80/20" rule could apply to those that do move, meaning that 80% would do very little while 20% do most of the work - a reliable standard in just about any group endeavor one can imagine. Wyoming protects us more than any other state when it comes to the potential affect such issues could have on our success in creating a free state. Consider a scenario in which we do reach 20,000 activists, all of which move, and then apply the 80/20 scenario. Twenty percent of 20,000 is just 4,000 persons doing the majority of the work, and looks this way when compared against the 2000 Census numbers for each state, and, just to be generous, I'll compare 4,000 effective activists to only voting-age population for each state:
Wyoming - 1 to 91
Alaska - 1 to 109
Vermont - 1 to 115
North Dakota - 1 to 120
South Dakota - 1 to 138
Delaware - 1 to 147
Montana - 1 to 168
Idaho - 1 to 231
New Hampshire - 1 to 231
Maine - 1 to 243
Three points of contention now arise: 1) If the FSP narrowed these ten states down using Jason's 1 to 62 ratio, then it stands to reason that we could be successful in any of these states. So why continue to quibble on population? 2) Why be so gloomy? Have a little faith and hope for the best. After all, we're all extremely motivated to work for liberty, aren't we? 3) What really counts is that the native population of the state be liberty-minded. If they are, then population is an advantage, or at least less of a problem because we'd have more allies.
Jason's research does indicate that we could potentially be successful in a state of 1.2 million with 20,000 activists saturating the population at a rate of 1 to 62; however, it stands to reason that if 1 to 62 could be successful in a state of 1.2 million, how much more could they do in states where they would saturate the population to an even greater degree? Remember that a state with 1.2 million people is the upper limit that we're dealing with here. It's the narrowest margin of safety that the FSP will allow.
Now, translate this into a real life example. You're headed down the highway with your family in the car, and a 4,000 foot drop off to your right. You are safe from falling into the abyss as long as you stay at least 1 inch from the edge. Would that margin of safety make you comfortable considering what is at risk? Or would you prefer to give yourself as much distance from the edge as possible, thereby further reducing the possibility of a nasty encounter with Isaac Newton's old friend gravity? Well then ask yourself how much is at stake with the FSP. Some believe that the future of liberty in this country may be at stake via what we are engaged in here. Are we prepared to risk its success on the slimest of margins?
Some say that they are absolutely certain that their favorite large state's population is liberty-friendly enough, and our activists bold enough, to make the difference. But here I would ask if you are really so confident in your knowledge of the hearts and minds of others (upwards of a million or more that you've never met) that you are willing to wager everything on the increased possibility that you might be wrong. To borrow from Clint Eastwood, just how lucky do you feel?
Remember that we're holding this vote at 5,000 members. We have no means of predicting what may happen after the vote that could affect future recruitment or effectiveness. Who could have predicted the changes that have come about in this country after 9/11?
In answer to question 2 - why be so gloomy? Have a little faith and trust in people, not statistics.
To those who ask this question, I would ask: "Just how confident are you in your assumption that everything will proceed according to the very best possible scenarios, and is that confidence really strong enough to justify the risks involved?" Consider how events might change public perceptions, even under what would ordinarily be favorable circumstances. Consider how an ill-chosen word or an ill-conceived deed on the part of a public figure in the post-FSP organization could empower the opposition and galvanize the public. The political world loves scandal, and more than one movement in history has come to ruin because of the impropriety of a few. That's not being "gloomy" or "negative" either. That's the cold, hard, ignore-it-at-your-own-risk truth of the arena we propose to enter with this project.