http://votepair.org/
2007-01-03 06:06:35 · 11 answers · asked by vissenrivier 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No I'm republican all the way
2007-01-03 06:09:35 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
in case you ever took precalculus or another math classification which covers homes of applications, you study a thank you to be sure the area of the function. between the purple flags to look out for is once you divide through 0. on your expression, while x = 3, the denominator is 0. subsequently, the area is each and every variety beside 3. regrettably, the variety you attempt to plug in (x = 3) is the only variety that doesn't artwork in this function. to work out this usual hand, you0 can graph this function on a TI-eighty 3. in case you zoom in near to the graph at x = 3, you will see that there is a sparkling spot there! this is by technique of the fact, as reported above, there only isn't a cost of the expression at x = 3. you may say, nicely curiously like the respond ought to be 6, finding on the graph. this thought of what the respond "ought to be" is what limits are all approximately. The values of the function on the left and genuine of x = 3 all bypass in direction of 6 as you get closer and closer. So we are saying the cut back as x is going to 3 is 6. So regardless of the undeniable fact that it somewhat isn't any longer technically the respond, 6 is your ultimate selection. 0 could no longer be ultimate in any experience. the very ultimate answer is to declare that the expression is undefined at x = 3. This issue illustrates why 0/0 is named indeterminate. in this issue, 0/0 in a fashion equals 6. the thought 0/0 can equivalent something is unquestionably the essence of calculus.
2016-11-26 00:59:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That depends on the 3rd party. I mostly agree with one of the major parties, so I would only change if another party came along that I agreed with on most everything. I wouldn't support it just to go against the main parties.
2007-01-03 06:08:40 · answer #3 · answered by Adriana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think a 3rd party would change things, other than another party line that no one would cross?
2007-01-03 06:10:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure! I'd vote for any party if the candidate had a solid platform with good policies and credibility.
2007-01-03 06:09:49 · answer #5 · answered by C D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You math is off. Several people in the past got around 5% and alll that did was elect a democrat (Clinton in 1992) or a republican (Bush in 2000)
2007-01-03 06:10:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. because we should do away with both parties and just be AMERICANS and start taking care of business instead of you can't have this if you don't give me that.
2007-01-03 06:10:54 · answer #7 · answered by plhudson01 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We tried that when Perot ran what good did it do!!!
All it did was get Clinton in office to mess up things!!
2007-01-08 14:43:41 · answer #8 · answered by TRUE GRIT 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it has nothing to do with how many parties it has to do who has the MONEY. you never see a poor man in office do you?
2007-01-08 15:46:32 · answer #9 · answered by jjp 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Start organizing ppl go for it. Do you need help how to do it.
2007-01-03 06:09:56 · answer #10 · answered by DAVAY 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
5% won't change things. You won't change anything unless you win some elections.
2007-01-03 06:52:14 · answer #11 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋