Here’s the link to the current vote!

http://foxnomad.com/2012/03/20/the-best-city-to-visit-travel-tournament-2012-final-four/

The key is there is no internationally recognized distinction between the two. A city is defined as a large town. You may find these two books of interest:

Urban Life: Readings in the Anthropology of the City (http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Life-Readings-Anthropology-City/dp/1577666348)

Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader (http://www.amazon.com/Theorizing-City-Urban-Anthropology-Reader/dp/0813527201/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)

The premise is that cities are social constructs; governments only make distinctions between cities and towns for administrative, legal, and economic purposes.

Each year has different results because the match ups, cities nominated, promotion, etc. vary. (Sydney did win Best City to Visit in 2009.) You’ll be able to see live results in the Final Four soon here:

http://foxnomad.com/2012/03/20/the-best-city-to-visit-travel-tournament-2012-final-four/

But completely fine to disagree with the results, it’s one of the oldest travel arguments there is! Which is the best, favorite, most exotic… That’s why this contest is so much fun to put on each year – people are passionate about their cities and favorites. I think your comments demonstrate that well and you’ll be ready to rally votes in 2013 🙂

Actually Steve, you should look up the definition. Let me help you – there is no standard definition of a city; …and having an airport doesn’t make you a city. Minot, North Dakota has an airport but only a population of 40,000; half that of Fethiye. Is it a city? And although 3 airports service the local area, there is no airport within Washington D.C’s city limits. Or Stockholm. Urban anthropologists can’t even agree or define what a city is in objective terms.

Local governments sometimes define city parameters, but there’s no international consensus.

All of that said, the votes have spoken thus far.