On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:08:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
IMO a system that adds in peer review voting in a way that limits movement up or down the list to two or three places would be appealing.

Along those lines, perhaps there could be a statistical trigger (e.g., based on standard deviation or other measures of variance) when there's unusual dispersion among the votes. Or when the voting order differs from the objective ranking by some amount. [Actually, higher dispersion within the voting should correlate most of the time with differences between the two rankings but I can envision situations (valid and questionable) where that would not be true.]

That trigger might call for closer scrutiny by the Team Committee, a second round of voting, a survey of the voters, or some other action or review to minimize questions about the validity of the selection.

I'm sure Andy could develop an algorithm that would serve as a trigger or circuit breaker or alarm for this purpose.

Chip Bearden