1) It's certainly possible too that the long-form DQ was done first for what would have been valid reasons. Then, when those valid reasons went away due to the short-form DQ, they didn't bother to undo the first DQ because they would end up DQing it again for the same reasons as the short-form.

3) I will happily agree with you. The problem is that the group that *doesn't* agree with this proposition is going to make it much harder to deal with #5 below.

4) Of course, you *could* have slate ballots that are fraudulent, with long sequences of names tied to a single email address -- wait! That's how we got in this mess in site selection in the first place, I am told.

5) The thing that worries me here is that I don't believe that this problem is solvable. Trying to use an "outside rating agency" for freedom is fraught with possibilities for stupidity. Making individuals responsible for this simply subjects them to abuse, which is pretty much what happened to people who were looking at the Discon site selection and saying "That's a bunch of fishy ballots." I mean, how could you possibly disenfranchise the fandom of an entire nation, a nation whose government only has our best interests at heart?

I'm sorry. Am I laying that on a bit too thick? :)