Molon Labe! (81 page)

After much research and consideration, the Committee is unanimous in our strong recommendation that Wyoming be chosen for our plan. In fact, Wyoming appears nearly tailor-made for our needs. The few disadvantages are either inevitable given our criteria, fairly insignificant in a relative sense, or will be mostly minimized with a successful long-term implementation of our plan.

Wyoming pros:

Smallest population, 2nd lowest population density, ample water, 6 contiguous states, near ideal political conditions, superb business climate, friendly and conservative people, bountiful energy and raw materials, self-sufficient agriculture.

Wyoming cons:

Mediocre topographical defensibility, little commercial air service, variously harsh weather (wind and cold), small manufacturing base, lack of border with Canada, lack of coastline.

If Montana and Idaho were as sparsely populated as Wyoming, then the selection would have been more difficult, however,
ceteris paribus
, Wyoming would have nevertheless remained our first choice. Montana and Idaho were strong runners-up, although they are both under some colonization by the liberal yuppy/"infopreneur" class.

Wyoming, however, does not attract such people and has remained the most undiscovered state in the lower 48. Life and earning a living are more difficult, which has served to repel the daintier types.

Finally, Wyoming is a very homogenous state on voting issues. Although a fiercely independent people, Wyomingites truly "pull together" for their special land. This Committee is confident that they can eagerly be led for dramatic change. Montana and Idaho, however, are more dichotic (though not to the extent of Colorado or Arizona), which would likely thwart our political agenda if attempted there.

In closing, we suggest that a unique fate seems to have preserved Wyoming for us and our kindred spirits, in a similar fashion that the USA retrospectively once served as a haven for the world's oppressed. As a rather eerie aside, this Committee has noted a recent surge of libertarian interest in Wyoming as a preferable state for the
laissez-faire
diaspora. (Also note the emergence of the NH-oriented Free State Project.) We take this to mean that we are definitely "on to something":

[A]
fundamental scientific rule...: If the time comes for a fundamental innovation, a breakthrough discovery or invention will be made several times, at different places, and by persons working independently from one another.

— Stefan T. Possony,
Psyops

We are very confident, however, that our plan is clearly the earliest, most extensive, and most ambitious of anything in its class. We believe that only a dramatic and concerted effort will achieve our desired results, and that our vision is, quite simply, one whose time has come.

(RE)TAKING LIBERTIES

Just as there was a specific formula for tyranny comprising several stages, there can be such for Liberty. As we will likely have only one chance at this it must be very carefully planned, and then executed with great courage and determination.

Counties

2006 and 2010 county "dress rehearsals" of the statewide effort in 2014 is absolutely vital. Twelve of the 23 counties have less than 15,000 people.

(Note: The "R#" is Republican %, and emboldened headings are actual figures. Counties are listed in order of # of reg. voters, not gross population. 2002 is used for reg. voters, as it was a general election year. The estimated primary voters % is a 12-year average of 75%.)

Conservative counties less than 9,000 people:

Preliminary analysis indicates that as few as 10,557 current Wyomingans (or 10,557 FSPers with 25% local voter support) could politically control all eight of these counties.

Conservative counties between 11,000 and 18,000:

Preliminary analysis indicates that as few as 13,901 current Wyomingans (or 13,901 FSPers with 25% local voter support) could politically control all five of these counties.

Controlling the 13 least populated counties

As few as 10,557 could politically control the 8 least populated counties, which means a geographical
third
of Wyoming. Only 586 could "own" Niobrara county. But here is the most amazing thing: as few as 24,458 current Wyomingans (or 24,458 FSPers with 25% local voter support) could politically control the 13 least populated counties, which geographically means
over half
of Wyoming. These 13 counties total an area the size of New York state! This kind of astounding political leverage exists no where else in the USA.

If we win in November 2014, then those of us who still live out of state will want to start packing and come to their new home. Even if we do not win the entire state, we will have won some counties for ourselves, and then can work for total victory in 2018.

Using political parties

The most important question is which party to field our gubernatorial candidate, Republican or a third party? A Republican nominee would clearly garner more votes than a third party figure and thus have the better chance of winning. However, he/she must first win the Republican Party's (RP) nomination. The difficulty of that cannot be measured presently. If the RP by 2014 has steered significantly towards a libertarian course, then our chances would be greatly increased, and we could possibly elect our own candidate in the primary election.

Or, the Libertarian Party (LP) could have made, by that time, large gains in voter popularity. If so, we would seriously consider an LP vehicle for our political goals.

We suggest a two-pronged approach: shifting the Wyoming Republican Party towards libertarianism, while enlarging the state's LP in order to command at least 10% of the general vote (instead of its 1-3% today). In this fashion, voters can choose from Freedom Party A or Freedom Party B.

State electoral considerations

Every four years (
e.g.,
2006, 2010, 2014, etc.) the entire Wyoming state government is up for grabs. Their Senate rotates in halves, so even the upper house can be swept out of office every two elections.

In 1996, Wyoming had 488,190 people, of whom 343,300 (70.3%) were voting age. Some 240,711 were registered voters for the general election, and of these 215,844 (a very high 90%) voted. A simple majority of those was just 107,923 voters.

Think about that: just 107,923 people voting for Liberty in 1996 could have grasped the political reins of the entire state of Wyoming, and that was in the year of its
highest
voter turnout. In an
average
turnout year, just 94,954 people could have done it.

Approximately 70% of the population is of voting age. Averaging voter registration/turnout figures from 1978 to 1996:

Worst-case scenario (194,251 relocator voters)

Using these percentages and a state population of 500,000 with 350,000 eligible voters, let us assume a "black sky" scenario wherein not a single native Wyomingite votes for our candidates. This would require that we move in 194,251 new
eligible
voters (not merely people) to gain a simple majority (
i.e.,
55.5% of 350,000/2, + 1). This is as infeasible as it is unlikely. Even if we could convince 194,251 adults (and their children) to relocate (which is unlikely), such would increase Wyoming's population by over 40% in far too short a time to house them (much less absorb them into the job and business markets).

Thus, we must win over a large portion of the existing electorate in order to reduce the required number of our relocators. Besides, we are not trying to transform Wyoming into something that it's not.

Low middle-case scenario (117,521 relocator voters)

The current political climate (based on registered voters) is 57% Republican, 31% Democrat, and 12% Other (including Libertarian Party and Natural Law Party).

"Other" is at least 5% in all counties, and up to 20% (Albany) and 28% (Teton), and is a significant/growing "wild card."

Assuming 350,000 eligible voters and an historic average of 55.5% actually voting in the general election (
i.e.,
194,250), the normal voting pattern would be:

For our "gray sky" scenario, let us assume that we co-opt the following percentage of existing voters from their parties:

for a total of
38,365
of original voters on our side, leaving a balance of 155,885 against us. So, 155,886 (155,885 + 1) minus the 38,365 already for us means we would need to relocate
117,521
new voters. Thus, with mild (
i.e.,
19.8%) indigenous political support, our relocation is reduced by 76,730 voters, or 40%.

Obviously, these figures rely upon an average 55.5% (80.1% votes cast times the 69.3% registered) voter turnout of native registered voters (including our converts), versus a
100%
voter turnout of relocated voters in efficient locations through prepositioning.