Yes yes, I know I'm a pedant.

The fact is, this is something that has always bugged me in elections wherein the candidates are not selected by a subset of voters, but rather merely by declaration of candidacy.

Nominate someone else for public office.

Declare your own candidacy.

Please change the Nomination phase of elections to the Declaration phase.

For the sake of my sanity. Please.

  • 7
    I find your sanity both shallow and pedantic... Hmm, yes, shallow and pedantic. – Niro Feb 1 '12 at 0:49
  • 7
    I've asked on English SE whether this is actually an incorrect use of the word. Considering that in Australia, one can say they "nominated" with self as the implied object, I'm not so sure. Pedantry seen, and raised. – Nicole Feb 1 '12 at 1:11
  • 1
    @NickC: That says that it does require an object in most places though. – Ullallulloo Feb 1 '12 at 1:26
  • 1
    @Ullallulloo - Yes, but that object can be self (and in the Australian sense, self is implied). – Nicole Feb 1 '12 at 2:00
  • 6
    Questionably accurate pedantry? I'm amazed this isn't in the triple digits yet – Michael Mrozek Feb 1 '12 at 2:02
  • 1
    Related question answered: english.stackexchange.com/questions/56552/… – Kris Feb 1 '12 at 6:20
  • When I first saw that phrasing I wanted to know how the nomination process worked. There were people I would have liked to nominate. It took a while to realize that I could not nominate someone else, I could only declare my own candidacy. I agree this needs to be fixed. – Frank Hubeny Mar 18 '19 at 1:54

Nomination is perfectly valid when applied to one's self.

You can nominate yourself for an office.

  • 6
    Nomination would be the more clear word if you could nominate someone else for moderator: "I nominate T.J. Crowder for moderator". But if you can only nominate yourself, then declare is the more clear, less ambiguous word – Adam Rackis Feb 1 '12 at 18:18
  • 4
    An extremely marginal improvement in clarity -- particularly when the existing word is correct -- isn't worth the pain in changing all the blog posts, all the code, etc. – Jeff Atwood Feb 1 '12 at 18:25
  • 9
    Is there seriously "all the code" to change, and not just a single word in a template somewhere? Blog posts can remain incorrect in the past, and correct from this point forward. This should not be an arduous task. – VxJasonxV Feb 1 '12 at 18:28
  • 3
    No one has mentioned about changing blog posts, just the wording on the sites. If you had to change previous blog posts every time you made a change to the site, that would just be silly. – Thomas Owens Feb 1 '12 at 18:30
  • 2
    +1 for being practical. There is not really any significant benefit in changing this. – Josh Darnell Feb 1 '12 at 18:32
  • 7
    A word is not correct just because it covers the meaning you intend it to, when it means more. No, you cannot nominate anyone besides yourself, so the intention of nominate is not completely correct. 'Declare' referring to ones own candidacy is much much more correct. I also think argument of "practicality" are moot unless you have access to the Stack Exchange source code to determine just how difficult this change really is. – VxJasonxV Feb 1 '12 at 18:41
  • 2
    @VxJasonxV English is a natural language: if a word is used in a manner that conveys mutual understanding or agreement, it's used correctly. To wit, tagging this with pedantry was an acknowledgement that the usage of the word "nomination" doesn't significantly affect the clarity of the concept being conveyed, but merely a pet peeve being aired. – user149432 Feb 1 '12 at 18:46
  • 7
    @Mark 's probably right. I just wish Jeff wouldn't be so curt in dismissing things like this, and in exaggerating how difficult changing one word in a template would be. Of course if this word is hard coded in myriad locations, well, might make for a good CodingHorror post. – Adam Rackis Feb 1 '12 at 18:55
  • 1
    @Thomas Actually, we do kinda go backwards and fix things in old blog posts if certain changes warrant it. – Grace Note Feb 1 '12 at 19:07
  • @GraceNote That's really not necessary. If it's significant, it can be discussed in a new blog post. Blog posts have dates and times attached, and one should expect that things change over time. In fact, it could be argued that blog posts should remain static (with the exception of perhaps adding a link to refer to a newer post if some content is invalid) to show a history of things. – Thomas Owens Feb 1 '12 at 19:11
  • @VxJ My point regarding practicality was more that I would support changing the wording if people were doing it wrong (putting themselves in the running when what they were trying to do is nominate someone else); as it is, it seems like people understand what is meant by "nomination" in this context. – Josh Darnell Feb 1 '12 at 19:14
  • 5
    @jadarnel27 I was surprised and annoyed when I couldn't nominate a specific person. I suspect I'm far from the only one. – VxJasonxV Feb 1 '12 at 20:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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