If I may stick in my 2-cents here..... there is an inherent problem with
this system of one person needing 50%. Let's stick with the baseball
example........
Imagine you had three deserving superstars on the baseball HoF ballot - for
example, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Ty Cobb. With a vpFREE-style vote
system, likely none of them would get the necessary 50%due to vote dilution. But
that's not right, all 3 would deserve induction.
There is a simple solution, already touched on by another contributor to
this thread. Allow each vpFREE member to vote for more than one candidate,
albeit only one vote per member for each candidate. If this kind of "unlimited"
voting isn't desirable, then allowing each member to vote for 3 candidates
could be a good compromise. If this style of voting were allowed, deserving
candidates would have a better chance of obtaining the necessary percentage.
One could even retain the current limit of one winner per year, simply by
inducting only the top vote-getter who received at least XX% of the votes.
- Brian in MI
deuceswild1000 wrote:
I did not try to equate it to baseball. I merely said that the HOF
for vpFREE did not have to have a winner each year based on highest
vote getter as I thought an individual proposed. If we had 10
nominees and each got 10 percent except one got 11 percent and one
got 9 percent, the 11 percent would be in. That sure does not sound
like a good system to me.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]