Survivor Rant: Should Quitters Get to Vote for the Winner?

It was the most shocking move on Survivor: Nicaraguayet. Following a devastating camp fire and days of torrential rain, two of the show's final nine castaways quit the game.

Both quitters, NaOnka Mixon and "Purple" Kelly Shinn, most likely had little shot of winning the million dollars. The former, after having battled a disabled contestant and thrown her closest friend under the bus to stay in the game, was the season's biggest villain. Purple Kelly, meanwhile, was too easy to manipulate to earn anyone's vote.
There's just one problem: These two women will still be allowed to vote for the winner.

Watch full episodes of Survivor: Nicaragua

We agree that there should be the same number of people on the jury each season. But is it fair to dilute the voting pool — and possibly skew the results in a different direction — simply because two competitors made a selfish decision?
As host and executive producer Jeff Probst pointed out in his weekly blog, there is a precedent: Janu Tornell sat on the jury after her departure on Survivor: Palau. But the producers made the wrong call then, just as they are now.

Catch up on today's latest news

If it's strictly about numbers, why not ask Jill Behm and Yve Rojas back?  Sure, they didn't take part in the merge and they didn't attend every tribal council after their exit like Alina Wilson & Co., but at least they went out playing.  The Survivor jury should be made of players who were completely invested in the game — individuals like Marty Piombo and Brenda Lowe, who fought until their torches were snuffed . People who choose to walk away from the game should be removed from all further parts the Survivor experience. As it stands, NaOnka and Purple Kelly are having their cake and eating it too.

Quitters never win — and they shouldn't vote.

What do you think? Should NaOnka and Purple Kelly still get to weigh in on the winner or did they kiss their voting power goodbye with their unceremonious exits?