I had wanted to put this up earlier, and now wish I had before Votto went on. I'd have liked to see a discussion on how to deal with Votto before annointing him #13 (or whatever), but that's moot now. I don't really think vote stuffing is the huge problem that others make it out to be - it's fairly easy to detect, we just need to agree on how to treat it.
What we can do is have a poll that references how the community in general feels we should deal with this next time it comes up. Doing so now, while there's no stuffing, will also help keep it free of passions over any one player.
So what I wanted to do was lay out a few approaches for when the WINNER of a poll clearly benefitted from ballot stuffing. (note that I am not talking about cases in which there is reasonable doubt).
As I recall, there were a few suggestions made last year. These were:
#1 - Ignore the stuffing and declare the "stuffee" the winner anyway. Let's call this the "Votto Approach." The rationale behind this is that it's the simplest solution, and the guy was likely to win in the next few rounds anyway.
#2 - Penalize the stuffing by declaring the #2 guy the winner - then leave the stuffee off the list for the next vote as a further penalty. The rationale behind this is that it provides a disencentive to stuff. Let's call this the Humber Approach.
#3 - Penalize the stuffing by declaring the #2 guy the winner - but leave the stuffee on the list for the next vote. Rationale here is that it's a compromise between #1 and #2.
#4 - Hold a run-off between the stuffee and the #2 vote getter.
I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I'd love to see some discussion and voting on this now, while it is not an issue, so that people running the polls can use it as a reference when the fur is flying.
What's that quote - constitutions are the chains with which men bind their hands in calm moments so they don't cut their throats in moments of passion? Something like that?