That makes a lot of sense - however, we invite you to look at it this way. If we are choosing someone for a role, we trying to focus one person’s energy into a set of tasks. So only one person should do it, not everyone who is qualified. And that means we’ll have to collectively choose, and we invite everyone to be a part of that.
By choosing that person, we’re not trying to find out how many/which people would be how qualified. So in a way, you’re answering a different question. You’re naming all the people qualified - the selection process only needs one person to be selected.
Along those lines, it’s a waste of time to have a conversation about all people qualified and their pros and cons etc. The idea of the selection process is to make an informed decision based on ideas from the group, as quickly as possible. Doing more means to spend more time meeting and less time doing, and we want to keep meeting time only to what’s necessary.
It’s great if there are more people qualified! That’s not a problem - celebrate that abundance! Just because you are nominating X, you are not saying that Y and Z aren’t qualified or good people.
Imagine this situation: One of your children hugs you and you say “I love you”. Did you now say that you don’t love the other children? No.
In the same way, naming one person doesn’t make any statement about the other people in the group. This kind of scarcity thinking is common in our society - but it’s really not helpful.
Some facilitators allow more than one nomination for one role - and that’s ok as long as it’s not a pattern of wanting to defer to others and deflect co-responsiblity.
Oftentimes, people say things like “I think all of us could do it well but I’ll nominate xyz.” And that’s how easy it can be.