14

At the end of the nomination phase there were 12 nominees, so a primary phase was required. During the primary, 2 nominees withdrew their nomination. Doesn't that mean we can prematurely end the primary phase? It's no longer needed in order to reach the 10 top candidates.

7
  • Considering I made the same question a minute after years (then deleted it), I think it's safe to say I agree :)
    – Wipqozn Mod
    Aug 17, 2011 at 12:44
  • 3
    @Wipqozn A minute after years? That's impressively late, no wonder you deleted it.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Aug 17, 2011 at 12:59
  • 2
    @GraceNote And I can't even edit it anymore. My failure will remain there for all to see.
    – Wipqozn Mod
    Aug 17, 2011 at 13:01
  • I could edit it for you... for a price
    – juan
    Aug 17, 2011 at 16:22
  • 5 upvotes sound good ;)?
    – Wipqozn Mod
    Aug 17, 2011 at 16:29
  • That sounds like turning around cause and effect. They withdrew because of the primary, so it seems effective to me
    – Ivo Flipse
    Aug 17, 2011 at 18:03
  • 1
    @Ivo the way I see it, the goal of the primary is to weed out all but 10 candidates. We've already reached this goal. If we want to change the primary's goal to encourage people withdraw, we should have applied it even if there were 10 nominees or less...
    – Oak
    Aug 17, 2011 at 18:09

1 Answer 1

3

We won't be skipping the primary phase - it still serves a function if any other people wish to withdraw.

5
  • 4
    But if there had only been 10 people at the end of the nominations we wouldn't have needed that function? Aug 17, 2011 at 18:03
  • @Michael - correct, the primary is working. It serves to reduce the number of candidates either by system elimination (top 10 by score) or by self elimination as a result of primary results. Aug 17, 2011 at 18:13
  • 1
    -1 because I agree with Michael, and I don't quite understand your rationale... but accepting the answer because it does address the issue, thank you. It's not a big deal either way.
    – Oak
    Aug 17, 2011 at 18:27
  • It serves to reduce the number of candidates either by system elimination (top 10 by score) or by self elimination as a result of primary results. Could explain why "self elimination as a result of primary results" is needed when system elimination is not needed, despite the fact that only the need for the latter can trigger the former? Aug 17, 2011 at 19:06
  • 1
    Perhaps this is similar to the idea behind hiding negative scores: it doesn't give the appearance of "great, we only needed to boot out two and now we got them out." (I will admit that if this is the case, it would make more sense to me if we also couldn't see when a candidate withdrew ... as it is, we still know which candidates dropped out to make it 10.) Aug 18, 2011 at 2:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .