I could be wrong but I think Jeff specifically tells the players they should vote for who they think did the best job at outwit/outlast/outplay. I guess I’d say I think the jurors should vote for who they legitimately think played the best or was the most deserving.

Another hypothetical would be say the jury all decided to vote for the worst player as a joke. Like when America tried to get the worst singer to win American Idol as a joke way back. If he had won, would we all have to say he is “the most deserving” because he accomplished the fundamental goal of (1) getting to the end and (2) getting the most votes? In both you are “supposed” to vote for the “best” which is subjective, I guess I’d say if a juror is knowingly voting for someone they don’t think is the best I’d call their criteria “wrong”.

For the record, I do think every player that has won a Survivor season so far was the rightful deserving winner even if I may have voted for someone else. But I just disagree with the idea that the jury always HAS to be right as some like universal law.