Hall of Merit Voters
Especially as the HOM was getting off the ground, voting was a difficult and time-intensive task, as voters were (and still are) given the prerogative to consider every player from the game's history in the Americas. That spans over 150 years of the game's evolution, includes players from non-MLB leagues, and even includes players from the time before baseball was professionalized.
One of the founding principles of the project was that voters also had (have) to defend their ballots, which again makes the process more time-intensive and arduous on occasion. The reason being that the HOM was seeking conscientious and serious voters who would abide by the specified guidelines. *
As such, voting for the HOM is really a research project. It's not possible to be fair to all eras and players from all leagues and backgrounds without digging into the history and doing a lot of critical thinking. Unlike other projects, voters can't just drop a ballot in the submission thread - if the ballot doesn't meet the guidelines and expectations, it won't be counted.
And this hasn't led to a simple echo chamber. Voters frequently submit ballots that are completely unalike, but as long as they are well-reasoned, internally consistent, and fair, they are equally valid.
In the course of the project, over 132 voters have participated in at least one election. Because early ballot submission threads have been lost to internet entropy, I know the number is greater than 132, but I can only identify that number for certain. The full list of HOM voters and the election years for which they submitted ballots is recorded in the sheet below. Voters who have submitted their personal Hall of Merit also have links to that info in the sheet.
There have been four voters who have submitted a ballot for every election in the history of HOM voting - that's 125 ballots over the course of 19 years!
-
Al Peterson
-
Howie Menckel
-
John Murphy
-
Rob Wood
The full sheet can be opened by clicking here.
* One drawback is that the project requirements have made the approach of new voters more difficult at times, and the ballot defense has caused some voters to leave the project as well. While the requirements impose a willingness for research and also for a defense of a voter's ballot to prove that it is well-considered and follows the guidelines, the result is to hold electors and ballots to a high standard.
To new voters:
While being made to defend a ballot may seem personal, it is not. It's likely that most voters have had to submit revised ballots upon questioning, at least at first, as we sometimes fail to follow the guidelines due to lack of awareness and not through intent. Whatever ballot questions may arise for new voters at this point in the project's history, they are quite unlikely to be nearly as contentious as debates sometimes became when the project was still taking shape! Many of the experienced voters have said that ballot questioning has been beneficial in helping them refine their own viewpoints and approach, as many voters have openly admitted to doing many times over the course of many years.