That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration. Maybe that doesn't happen though, because every year there is outrage that someone voted for a guy who is on the ballot that had no business getting a vote. Well, if he doesn't deserve even 1 vote what the heck is he doing on the ballot in the first place? I agree that those guys named above are in no way HOFers and it's a joke to think otherwise. So just pull them off the ballot altogether. To me if their name is on the ballot then it doesn't stand to reason that someone shouldn't have the right to vote for them, regardless of how much sense it might make.

Scott, they tried that in 1946. It made the problem worse, not better. In times when there is a logjam and a number of candidates that are arguably qualified, lessening the number of candidates that can be voted for dilutes the vote for each of them and helps ensure that no one gets enough votes. I'm sure the problem was more acute in 1946, but I really don't see that as a fix that is workable. Most of the voters argue, and I think that I tend to agree, is that the fix is not to arbitrarily limit the number of votes that can be cast to 10. That way, if you want to vote for your buddy or hometown hero just because, it doesn't hurt the ones who are actually qualified and might deserve a vote.

Gotcha. I personally do not have a problem with Sonny Jackson getting a vote. It is stupid but it does not put him in the hall.

Remember after Jim Deshaies retired, he said all he wanted to make his career complete was one HOF vote? He seemed to be having fun, and very down-to-earth. Some voter gave him one.

It IS given a sanity check.

From the HOF site: