The Relevance View promises to reconcile aggregationist and anti-aggregationist intuitions: we should aggregate people’s claims, but only those relevant, that are sufficiently strong compared to another claim. However, the Relevance View is confronted with two challenges. (i) In multiple-option choices, it implies cyclical obligations. (ii) In choices between heterogeneous groups, it dismisses irrelevant claims too easily. Some proponents solve (i) by a global interpretation, but they cannot account for (ii). Others address (ii) by a local understanding, but they fail to avoid (i). I tackle both challenges together by considering cases with multiple options and heterogeneous groups. The key is to distinguish the relevance of claims and the reasons provided by relevant claims. I argue that (ii) requires a local relevance: claims are relevant not in general but only relative to particular other claims. To solve (i), we should understand the reasons as global: reasons in favour of an option relative to not only one but all alternatives. However, local relevance doesn’t entail local reasons, and global reasons don’t need global relevance. Locally relevant claims that are satisfied under an option can, thus, provide global reasons to choose that option rather than any other available alternative.