That's the point of rounds of voting. Round 1 Top 10. Most people will vote for the almost universal agreed sites. Round 2, another top 10 of remaining sites that have near universal agreement. By Round 3,4,5 I feel we will have some differentiation, but some basic agreed sites.
Round 1 - 10 Selections
Round 2 - 10 Selections
Round 3 - 10 Selections
Round 4 - 10 Selections
Round 5 - 10 Selections
*If we feel we need to extend the list past 50, we can discuss it.
This voting suggestion had several members (Khuft, Clyde, Winterkjm) who liked this format. Everyone gets plenty of votes (equally) and members can vote for the most deserving in the first couple rounds, which promotes general consensus. And in the later rounds, members can vote for that deserving site that not everyone may know or agree about. Thoughts?
It would not be that difficult each round to remove 10 sites that were selected for the voting to continue. Exp. Round 1 - 113 sites to vote for, Round 2 - 103 sites to vote for, Round 3 - 93 sites to vote for, etc. I think this is a good way to maintain list integrity while giving everyone a great deal of equal participation in the voting process. This also would ensure no wasted votes. Each round would last about a week to make sure everyone got a chance.
Certainly open to suggestions for voting, but it is difficult to come up with a voting framework that meets: 1) Equal voting, every vote is worth the same 2) Equal & significant participation, every participant will have 50 total votes 3) No wasted votes, if some of your votes fail, try again in a later round 4) Appropriate Length, 5 rounds (a week each) provides ample time for participation
I think that the process can result in a list everyone is happy with, because participants will have plenty of voting opportunities to be heard. And if a certain candidate site fails to reach the appropriate number of votes in any of the 5 rounds, it probably is by consensus that it is not Top 50 Missing.
So far we've had 16 active participants. If all participated in the voting, there would be 160 votes cast for Round 1, with some sites perhaps reaching 16 votes. I think this would suffice for a tally that would sustain a certain level of consensus. Granted in later rounds, 3-5 votes may be enough to include a site on the Top 50 Missing list.
Considering one of the potential areas of concern, a draw. If (2) candidate sites end with the same amount of votes, what is the rule or procedure? Not sure about this, perhaps a tie results in both candidates being not selected for that round. Example, if there were 8 frontrunner sites with the most votes, and 3 other sites with the same amount of votes, then only the first 8 would become Top 50 Missing. The other 3 sites would remain open for voting in the next round. Only an idea for a potential issue.