I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)