Quote:
Originally Posted by murg
So, making it cheaper to manipulate the nominations is the solution?
|
If I got the price of this year's supporting membership wrong, then by all means, feel free to insert $"whatever-the-current-price-for-a-supporting-membership-costs-this-year" in place of the $40 I mentioned. The price can change sometimes from year to year after all.
But regardless, I fail to see how more and more people nominating would
help facilitate manipulation of the the nomination process--no matter the price. That there's a relatively "smallish" number of people who nominate (and vote) for any particular year is a big part of the reason the nomination process is being so easily manipulated in the first place.
A one time fee for the right to nominate in perpetuity guarantees a larger and larger nomination pool; and the con still gets to sell new annual voting priviledges/memberships. Which will make it difficult to stack the nomination deck.
The actual voting has never been particularly surprising or shocking. Whatever the choices are, voters rarely seem to completely ignore the relative merits of the choices they're given.