PDA

View Full Version : What about a Free County Project? Or 10 of them?




MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
02-03-2008, 02:04 PM
I see all of these threads talking about what to do later if Paul isn't elected. I'm all in on Paul for now, and think it's quite possible.

I always thought the free state project was a good idea. I think they were too ambitious. Unfortunately, I lost confidence in NH. Not to mention that it's on the edge of the country.

What about some Free County Projects in various regions? I think a better start would be 10 counties scattered throughout the country.

People saying they want to take over the republican party on a national level... I don't think it's happening. But, it could maybe start at the county level where people can move to areas that aren't so far away from them, with differing regions and climates that suit them.

literatim
02-03-2008, 02:58 PM
The reason New Hampshire was chosen for Free State Project was because it is low in population and it is easier to control local elections, the districts are numerous and small. It wasn't because they are the most liberty minded people of all the States.

FreeTraveler
02-03-2008, 03:00 PM
I think it would be great for someone who has mapping skills to do a county by county map that shows the percentage of Dr. Paul's vote by color. That would make it easy for us to see those areas that would be most receptive to the freedom message.

Goldwater Conservative
02-03-2008, 04:01 PM
Good idea. I've thought of this myself. At the current rate of people moving, the Free State Project will take decades to really sway the entire state. Targeting a county could have much quicker results on a local level, which could then be used as a springboard for affecting an entire state.

I know Florida has a huge population, but it does have low taxes (6% sales) at the state level. A county like Franklin County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_County%2C_Florida), with a population of about 10,000 (which probably translates into 6000-7000 voters), would be relatively easy to affect. Political power could mean the repeal of property taxes and local option sales taxes, which are what is making Florida have such a high cost of living, plus whatever ridiculous local ordinances there might be. Choosing a place like that would also attract more people, given its fantastic climate. It even seems to have given 2.3% of its vote to "Other" in the 1988 presidential election, which can only mean it was much more receptive to Ron Paul's message than the nation as a whole. :)

FreeTraveler
02-03-2008, 04:03 PM
How did they do in the primary for Dr. Paul?

Goldwater Conservative
02-03-2008, 04:34 PM
How did they do in the primary for Dr. Paul?

Worse than he did in the state overall, but not by that much:

21 votes out of 789 = 2.66%
62,063 votes out of 1,920,350 = 3.23%

However, I don't think the primary results indicate much of anything, considering all the factors in play: state constitutional amendment on the ballot to cut property taxes attracted the otherwise apathetic, A LOT of senior citizens, winner-take-all primary meant everyone abandoned candidates other than McCain and Romney in the closing days, and few official campaign efforts (wise move on their part).

Again, looking for a place with a small population means the political leanings currently there are much less important.

pinkmandy
02-03-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm so up for a move! Count me in- I'm in a rural VA area now so something climatically similar (or warmer) with mountains. We must have mountains!!!

Goldwater Conservative
02-03-2008, 05:02 PM
I'm so up for a move! Count me in- I'm in a rural VA area now so something climatically similar (or warmer) with mountains. We must have mountains!!!

I'd love mountains, but warmth is a must for me. That would probably mean the lower Appalachians if I had to have both.

Then again, I absolutely love beaches. After all, what's freer than being out on the open sea? Access to the ocean also seems like it'd be a big plus from a pragmatic, commercial standpoint.