Why was New Hampshire chosen as the destination state for the Free State Project?
If you spend much time advocating for the Free State Project, you will soon encounter people who complain that New Hampshire was chosen as the destination state. For example:
"Because who wants to live in NH? I liked the idea of the FSP, but what's the point when you're surrounded on all sides by socialist yankees?
Pick a nicer state that people would actually want to live in that isn't surrounded by shit and we can reevaluate"
It’s important to keep in mind that all states have upsides and downsides. No matter which state had been chosen, a large number of people would not like the choice.
Since it's impossible to please everyone, the question is what is the best we could do? Was the choice reasonable, given the amount of information we had at the time?
IMO, the process used to select New Hampshire was reasonable and thorough. Prior to the vote, extensive amounts of data were collected and analyzed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030605144906/http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm
The options were limited to states that:
were small enough that 20 K activist libertarians could sway the outcomes of the elections.
had a culture that was somewhat pre-disposed to liberty. Hawaii, for example, only has a population of ~1.5 million people, but was eliminated because it's utterly dominated by the Democratic party.
A vote was taken once 5000 people had signed the Statement of Intent, using the Condorcet method to determine the winner:
Here are the vote results:
New Hampshire
Wyoming
Montana
Idaho
Alaska
Maine
Vermont
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
As the following table shows, New Hampshire received 251 more first place votes, and 15 more 2nd place votes, than runner-up Wyoming.
IMO, New Hampshire won because:
NH already had one of the most pro-liberty cultures. (The state motto is "Live Free Or Die", after all.)
Then NH Governor Craig Benson explicitly invited the FSP to choose New Hampshire. No other governor was as welcoming.
NH House has a uniquely large legislature. Each House member only represents ~3000 people per rep, which makes it easier for motivated activists to win.
NH has a diverse, healthy economy.
NH has access to the sea and to Canada. (Important considerations if the US were to attempt say, a trade embargo on NH).
NH scored highly on most quality of life metrics (low crime, high income, beautiful natural environment, good schools, etc.)
The most common complaint is that New Hampshire is cold. However, none of the high scoring alternatives have weather that is any warmer: the #2 and #3 winners were Wyoming and Montana.
Many public offices require living in New Hampshire for several years before you're eligible to run. For example, you have to live in New Hampshire for seven years before you can run for senate. If the FSP switched to a new state, the clock would have to be reset.
In addition, it takes time to build cultural and institutional support for liberty. Free Staters in New Hampshire have started and operate many organizations in support of gun rights, separation of school and state, tax reduction, and so on. It would take years to rebuild those institutions in another state.
IMO, it would make sense to re-adjudicate the destination state only if new information arose that significantly increased the desirability of another state. To my knowledge, there's no reason to believe that the fundamental case for each state has changed significantly. Therefore, NH should remain the destination state for the Free State Project.