Looking for some input on the voting processes and procedures used by different local associations for their hall of fames. I serve on the board of my local association and year by year our voting is dropping off and this year we did not have a single inductee. Our current process is that anyone who meets the nomination requirements can be nominated by any member of our association. Our voting is then done by the members of our board, association directors and all current living HOF members. Our current voting procedure is two stages. Stage one you can vote on up to three nominees and fifty percent of the vote is required to move onto stage 2. Stage 2 allows for a vote of up to two of the remaining nominees and requires a 75 percent vote for induction. Our main problem is lack of ballots we receive back. I think this year there were either 34 or 36 possible voters. Stage 1 we only got 21 ballots and stage 2 we only received 18. All board members and directors turned theirs in so it was all HOF members that we did not get votes from. This was the first year since 1980 that we did not have an inductee into our hall despite three nominees moving onto stage 2. 13 votes were needed for induction and the nominees received 12, 12 and 11 (despite one of them receiving 20 out of 21 in stage 1). I'm looking for input and suggestions either posted here or you could message me if that would be easier. As an association we don't know what we can do to increase our voting or if we need to change our current procedures and regulations. Any comparisons or differences between our association and your local would be appreciated. This is something that is going to be on the agenda for our next meeting. Any and all comments, suggestions, criticisms or whatever of our current process and procedure will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for any and help you may provide.

Yeah, it shouldn't be a popularity contest, but unfortunately it is most places.  We have some guys in our local hall that shouldn't even be allowed to hold some other HOF's bowling towel.  Now sometimes you'll have special circumstances, like a guy here that hasn't bowled since he was in high school, but he's been writing a weekly bowling column for the local paper for the last 35 years . . without getting paid for it.  We felt that merited induction even though he hasn't bowled for 3 1/2 decades, and no points system would have put him in.  However, the vast majority of of inductees will be based on their bowling.  We also have guys here that by their numbers should be in the hall of fame, but they aren't because they aren't "old enough."  A points system would be the fairest way to go about it. 

And I think therein lies the problem . .

I don't know any hall of fames at any level in any sport that are based primarily on any kind of statistical basis.  No way to take judgment and opinions out of the process.  Even a statistical point system contains the prejudices of the people who design it with respect to what merits points, and how many.

Another-

http://www.lpga.com/golf/news/criteria-for-the-lpga-tour-hall-of-fame.aspx

The LPGA has a veteran category that is based on voting, but if compile enough points there are no politics involved. 

That is the perfect example of why there needs to be two catagories, performance and meritorious service.

Yeah, it shouldn't be a popularity contest, but unfortunately it is most places.  We have some guys in our local hall that shouldn't even be allowed to hold some other HOF's bowling towel.  Now sometimes you'll have special circumstances, like a guy here that hasn't bowled since he was in high school, but he's been writing a weekly bowling column for the local paper for the last 35 years . . without getting paid for it.  We felt that merited induction even though he hasn't bowled for 3 1/2 decades, and no points system would have put him in.  However, the vast majority of of inductees will be based on their bowling.  We also have guys here that by their numbers should be in the hall of fame, but they aren't because they aren't "old enough."  A points system would be the fairest way to go about it. 

Dear Gizmo823:

Yeah, tell me about it.

In my area, the bowling Hall of Fame is nothing but a "popularity contest" ... and further, the Hall has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the local association or USBC. It is nothing but a "private club" that invites certain people into its "good-old-boys" organization.

It's also interesting that you mention a Hall member who didn't even bowl since high school, but he's written a bowling column for 35 years, and you imply that's his only Hall qualification (though in my opinion, not an insignificant one).

However, I've also written a local bowling column for 35 years, and I've never been inducted into the Hall. But that isn't my only qualification. In one 10-season stretch, I carried a higher average than anyone ever inducted into the Hall for six of those seasons, including four in a row. And I've won association tournament championships in five consecutive decades. I've also served as a league officer on more than 60 occasions, but apparently, I'm not considered Hall eligible by the "good-old-boys" club.

Thank you to those that replied. Any other ideas? I have some new stuff to bring up at our next meeting from the input I received. It really looks like we may be in a no win situation no matter what we decide. There are going to be cons to every scenario that we may come up with. Either people that may be "deserving" that are overlooked or people who have no business being a "Hall of Famer" getting inducted, and I'm still not really sure which one is worse. Maybe trying some kind of hybrid type nomination/voting process may be worth looking into. Maybe a points based system for nomination or consideration followed by a voting process. I guess our situation, and I mean bowling as a whole, not just our association, will always have problems like this. Just look at the other pro sports, especially baseball, which I'm not going to get into any type of debate over as I have many times with people and I even find myself changing my mind and opinions on people frequently.  Bonds and Rose? Based on a points system they are 100 percenters. Bonds on a voting system = not so much.  Rose = probably no chance till he and Selig are both gone and even then probably a long shot. Many others fall into the Bonds category. And then there are the Biggio's. Longevity, quality stats, represents what a pro ball player should be (I've not heard any negatives or suggestions otherwise) and even on the ballot with a ton of the recently questionable players and still doesn't get inducted.

Fish, that should be the hall of infamy, should it not?