In a message dated 9/28/08 7:13:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
deuceswild1000@yahoo.com writes:
···
I believe many HOFs require and inductee to get a certain minimum of
votes, not the one who gets the most votes.I think this is an attempt to duplicate that concept.
In that sense I agree with the concept.
Now should it be 50% or 70% or what is subject to debate, but I for
one would vote for a fairly high percentage.It is not mandatory that a certain number of inductees be included in
other HOFs and I think this parallels that.
****
Most of us think of the Baseball Hall of Fame as the Grand-Daddy of HOFs.
They have tough rules. Membership to vote is limited, to who...baseball
writers? You have to be retired player for five years to make the initial appearance
on the ballot. You have to gather enough votes (what 5% of voters) to remain
on the ballot for the next voting year.
But the voters are not limited to just one vote. They can stuff the ballot
box. I do believe to get elected that a player needs 75% of the voters who
cast ballots. There is no limit to the number of elected members in a class. It
ebbs and flows based on who retires each year.
If a player stays on the ballot until he is not eligible anymore (what 10
years) then there is a veterans committee who can take up his cause (Ron Santo
for me).
So it is hard to equate Video Poker to Baseball. A VP HOF nominee should
have influenced most of us "voters" based upon their contrubution to the
technology, their expansion of knowledge or their willingness to share what they offer
without direct compensation.
<BR><BR>**************<BR>Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.<BR> (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)</HTML>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]