Stacking a state

J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
Most of the people on this forum seem to be pretty serious about the second amendment and such. Also most I would guess are pretty well off or at least have job skills that are easily portable or are independent business people. More so than the general population at least. My question is, why don't people stack a state?
Pick a state that is important in every presidential election and move there in mass? I recommend Ohio personally (I do live in the great state of Ohio). Some other states would obviously have innate levels of gun owners, but those are states that usually do not have much to do with deciding elections. Would Obama or Clinton be talking about an AWB if they knew Ohio would not support a candidate that did? Ohio is always very close.
Absolute worst case scenario there is one state that will survive the chinese invasion in 20 years. JK... sort of.
 
Your "stack a state" plan could very well make a difference in who controls the White House and Senate. Especially if your talking about very close states such as Ohio. Vote with your feet has a lot of merit.
 
still one vote

is all you get. I immagine some mathmatical model could be made to show how you might change the election results by implementing such a plan. However there would be so many what if's connected to the plan. And in the midle of the stack you could end up with other issues by changing you residency for state elections.
 
I am not suggesting you rent a place and change residency for a month. I am suggesting you move here permanently. The area around Yellow Springs is my suggestion. Known for being extremely liberal the area is really just very accepting. There are as many Baptists that are very conservative as there are liberal hippies.

I am not a Republican here, as I assume most are, I am a Libertarian. I am acquainted with a lot of Republican politicians from small town to US Senate, and they frustrate me as much as the Democrats. Farm-aid = welfare, drug controls = gun control, outlawing civil unions = not allowing after school religious groups. Probably a lot won't agree with me on these issues, but if you really wnat to live your life your way, neither party holds the solution.

I looked up the free state project and love the idea, but there is no reason to goto a small state. Think about Wyoming. What would it accomplish to put 20,000 libertarians (basically who the project is aimed at) in Wyoming? 3 electorial votes? 2 senators. 1 Representative. Better to get 5000 into a big state that plays a role in every election and is generally very close, preferably a small locality. In my local elections it is not abnormal to see elections won by 5-10 votes in off years. You put 5000 voters in one small to medium Ohio county and you:
1.control most city elections
2.control county elections
3.still have a voting block that can swing a national election and heavily influence US senators and Representatives.
Remember that on most issues local gov't affects you as much as national
New Hampshire (the state suggested in the site) is already crammed with Libertarians (Classical Liberals. You need to goto an Ohio or a Florida. Florida is one hell of a place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there (unless I was arthritic). Ohio is one hell of a place to live, I don't know what you would do on a visit though.
 
the magic word

control. Our group will control you better that their group will control you. Seems like a control issue to me. :cool:

Then when we are in control we can do exactly what the original idea of getting away from being controlled by the other controllers we want to control.


In any even sooner or latter it will be back to the same issue one group deciding what then other should do just like now.
 
Stack a state could work in reverse. Half of the liberals in California could move out of there to a red state, cause the red state to turn blue and California would still be a liberal state.
 
California is more a product of gerrymandering, corruption, hardcore activism, and political maneuvering than the will of the people. Sure there are a few million in the ultra disgusting category, but it's NOT the majority of people. What you have is a majority of people who have no REAL vote- the deck is stacked with 2's and 3's for one side and aces and kings for the other almost every hand.
 
personally, I would prefer a system where national votes were determined by popular vote. that way nobody's vote could be made to count for more, or less, because of where they live.
 
Stack a state could work in reverse. Half of the liberals in California could move out of there to a red state, cause the red state to turn blue and California would still be a liberal state.
Click to expand...

I hear that's happening now. It seems that CA is so screwed up that even a lot of the folks that had a direct hand in making the mess are moving out. Sadly, they're moving to other states that don't have the same problems... and then starting to create those problems in their new home.
 
Toybox, I get what you are saying. I have thought about it too. I think that enough people are tired of the two party system that trying something like this to put in a third party in local elections and at least influence the big ones would be worth a try.
A while ago I took a bunch of the issue based political quizzes to see which candidate you align with, I ended up 54% McCain 46% Clinton and 42% Obama, and for all three it seemed the issues we agreed on were things I did not much care about. Voting for a third party is throwing my vote away, but so is voting for the other two.
 
Biggest drawback

Is the simple fact that many of us simply cannot afford to uproot and move. If I were independant financially, that would be one thing, but I am not. Back in 1979 I did pack up and leave New York, but way back then I was financially independant. When you have no money, no job, and all your earthly posessions can fit in your car it's easy to move. Today it is quite a different matter.

I have over 26 years working in a job that has no analog anywhere else. There is nothing I am "qualified" for that even exists anywhere else, let alone provides a comparable income. And I am getting a bit on in years to just chuck everything and start over. So I won't be going anywhere, at least until after I retire.

I think there are a lot of us in somewhat similar situations, people who have family and community ties, and personal investments of time and money where they live. Moving, starting over, just for political reasons is not practical for most. At this time. What we do is work to keep the antis from getting more control where we live now. I sympathise, but I am not at this time able to do more than that. Good Luck.
 
Well I just wanted to put this out there for anyone who was packing up and starting over. Ohio isn't the most gun friendly state, but nothing ridiculous like NY or Cali. A few people in a small area could really make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top