I think, personally, that if the approaches are different "enough" that it makes good sense to post separate answers. I'll put forward two examples of mine: one I think is a clear-cut example of doing this appropriately, the other may be borderline.
In How are "non-damage" attack rolls determined? I present two different ways to handle OP's question. Both, I believe, are supported by the rules. But I think they're different enough that voters should be able to separately express their opinions. The disparity in votes on the answers may reflect the propriety of separating the answers, though it may just be a reflection of the post-dates for the two answers. (The high-voted answer was posted ten minutes after the question, the low-voted answer four days later.) In any case, these answers are different in RPG-space, and certainly deserve to be voted on separately.
In Is "Unearthed Arcana: Players Make All Rolls" Correct? I wrote two answers which--as a math teacher--I feel present markedly different ways of understanding the result. One is purely theoretical and tackles the general case, the other demonstrates the error in the UA article by looking at one specific example. I had in mind that one might seem obtuse and overwrought to some who might find the second perfectly suitable, while the second might seem underdeveloped and trivial to some who find the first a natural way of explaining. That said, they both arrive at the same conclusion (in mathematically identical ways) and don't fundamentally offer anything distinct vis-a-vis RPGs. The distinction between them is in mathematical presentation, but this isn't Math.SE. Perhaps these should have been one answer.