[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Isn't a vote for Newt a vote against Romney?
And, isn't a vote for Newt or for Santorum a vote against Romney?
So why would a vote for Santorum not be a vote against Newt or Romney?

[Kit cat]

With Newt’s supporters Samtorum could take it away from Romney,
Newt does not have the numbers in Michigan and is not spending any
money there.

[CainConservative]

“Isn’t a vote for Newt a vote against Romney?”

Not in Michigan, my friend.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Isn't a vote for Newt a vote against Romney?

And, isn't a vote for Newt or for Santorum a vote against Romney?

So why would a vote for Santorum not be a vote against Newt or Romney?

When there are more than 2 candidates in an election (with Ron Paul, there are four in this one), there is no principled mathematical way of selecting the best candidate unless the winner has an absolute majority of the vote. The second place or even the third or fourth place finisher, after all, might be acceptable to more people than the first place finisher. The first place finisher might have only 30% of the vote, and the fourth place finisher might be the second choice of 100% of the voters.

Typically our elections are “first past the pole” winner take all. That means that if Gingrich and Santorum appeal to the same base, and together draw 55% of the vote, but split it 27-28, Romney takes the whole state if he wins 29% of the vote. Whereas if in that example, if Gingrich voters vote Santorum, Romney loses. And that is what is being advocated here.