In answer to question 3 - population doesn't matter so much as long as the population is liberty-friendly.
I believe that most FSP'ers would agree with me when I say that there is no libertarian state in this country. There are states that are more free than others, but libertarian freedom is an entire level above and beyond what most Americans think of as "free." Put this to the test sometime. Ask your neighbors how they'd feel about lower taxes, and then ask them how they'd feel about reducing taxes so much that there would be no government services aside from maintaining the peace and holding court. Ask them how they'd feel about greater school choice, and then ask them how they'd feel about having to pay for their own child's education like they'd pay their own electric bill. Ask them how they'd feel about decreased regulation, and then ask them how they'd feel about their neighbors having the right to do just about anything they want to with their adjacent lots.
Such scenarios are the effective difference between what we term "libertarian freedom" and what is really just "conservatism." Personally, I don't believe most Americans are prepared for real libertarian freedom. Much of American groans under excessive regulation, but at what point would freedom cease to be a relief for them, and become an unacceptable "burden" or "risk" instead? Remember that the libertarian version of freedom is not just freedom for you to live as you please, but freedom for those around you to live as they please. In other words, freedom for those around you to potentially annoy or offend you, and perhaps even potential for them to harm you if they are less responsible or sensible than they should be. After all, a libertarian society would take very little in the way of pre-emptive measures against individuals. How palatable would that be to most of the people you know? How many incidents would it take before the public would start saying: "There ought to be a law!"?
This is another reason why it is so very important that we be as large a group as possible in terms of the size of the general population. Many will likely follow us joyfully down the road to greater tax relief and less regulation, but how many will cross the libertarian Rubicon with us and place their lives, their convenience, and their sensibilities at the mercy of granting maximum liberty to those around them?
In summary, and setting aside the negative aspects first, smaller states present us with populations that are less likely to harm our efforts should something go awry. Then, on a more positive note, smaller states present us with greater opportunity to spread our influence that much more quickly, and to use our combined strength that much more effectively (as long as there are not serious potential problems - a low population state full of statists, for example).
Robert Hawes - July 2003
Addendum:
In terms of being as large a presence as possible in relation to the general population, consider how 10,000 or 20,000 FSP'ers might have influenced the following numbers - taken from Wyoming's 2002 election returns:
Primary election totals:
2000 Primary total votes - 108,238 (vs. 223,419 for Montana)
2000 Primary GOP - 74,663
2000 Primary Democrat - 30,765
2000 GOP Primary for US Rep Cubin - 54,946
2000 Democratic Primary for US Rep - 14,219
2000 GOP Primary for US Senate Thomas - 68,132
2000 Democratic Primary for US Senate - 16,530
2000 General election total votes - 221,685 (vs. 578,656 for New Hampshire)
2002 General election total votes - 188,028