I totally agree with you - and it wouldn't be my cup of tea either - but I'm reporting how I think it will fallout should that extremely unlikely scenario occur - not what I *want*, but what I expect the vocal response will be.
Also, I wasn't talking about deliberately favoring US bids (tho some of the complainers might), I was suggesting those vocal complaints would want a system that didn't double eliminate because of ties - ever.
I would prefer a healthier response - but I've seen far too much vitriolic response to expect anything other than vocal objection to all US sites being eliminated at once, repugnant or not.
And would the same happen in 3 non-US bids? I suspect if the cities were "well recognized" and "major hubs" for US travelers, no - but if the winner were less known and harder to get to? Probably, no matter how offensive some of us might find that result.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-08-30 05:59 pm (UTC)I totally agree with you - and it wouldn't be my cup of tea either - but I'm reporting how I think it will fallout should that extremely unlikely scenario occur - not what I *want*, but what I expect the vocal response will be.
Also, I wasn't talking about deliberately favoring US bids (tho some of the complainers might), I was suggesting those vocal complaints would want a system that didn't double eliminate because of ties - ever.
I would prefer a healthier response - but I've seen far too much vitriolic response to expect anything other than vocal objection to all US sites being eliminated at once, repugnant or not.
And would the same happen in 3 non-US bids? I suspect if the cities were "well recognized" and "major hubs" for US travelers, no - but if the winner were less known and harder to get to? Probably, no matter how offensive some of us might find that result.