My 2 cents, FWIW
Admin's reasonig (below) is impeccible. Yet, this is the first slate I find to contain several worthy inclusions, yet no stand out one. I may be wrong, but I see the 33% threshold to pose a real challenge this go.
If that proves the case, I strongly recommend a run-off amongst the 6 top votr recipients, keeping the 33% threshold intact.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:
>
> AK-SAR-BEN - tomskilv wrote:
>
> > Looking at the list I could see 10+ deserving persons to be in the hall of
> > fame. Yet it would be hard for one person out of 20 to get 33% of the vote ...
>
> I posted my response (appended below) to similar points
> that were raised by Bob Dancer.
>
> I'll add to my response by stating that I believe that the cream
> always rises to the top, and as some of the cream is removed,
> there is less remaining cream (if there is any at all) to
> consider.
>
> As an example:
>
> TomSki received 57.0% of the vote in the 2008 election
>
> TomSki received 23.2% of the vote in the 2007 election
>
> TomSki received 21.8% of the vote in the 2006 election
>
> TomSki received 20.7%% of the vote in the 2005 election
>
> TomSki received 17.9%% of the vote in the 2004 election
>
>
> In any event, all suggestions will be considered for the possible
> tweaking of the rules for future elections, but the rules for the
> 2012 election, which starts tomorrow, won't change.
>
> vpFREE Administrator
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
> vpFREE Administrator posted on 4 DEC:
>
> My goal is to preserve the exclusivity of the Hall of Fame,
> while ensuring that worthy candidates get recognized. The
> election rules are designed to accomplish this goal.
>
> Here are the % of vote figures for the winning inductee in each
> of the Hall of Fame elections.
>
> 2002 - 14.1%
> 2003 - 19.8%
> 2004 - 25.8%
> 2005 - 39.9%
> 2006 - 23.4%
> 2007 - 25.3%
> 2008 - 57.0%
>
> Each previous Hall of Fame election has removed successful
> inductees from the nominee pool. And, each removal makes it
> easier for a stand-out candidate to receive a higher
> percentage of the total vote.
>
> The greater than 1/3 requirement seems reasonable and
> attainable to me, but it is tweakable in future elections,
> if it seems appropriate.
>
> vpFREE Administrator
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (11) |
