John Robin's Epic Fantasy Syndicate discussion

I want to expand on the point I made in the December 2015 voting thread on the subject of how the syndicate votes. Here is what I'm thinking, and I'd like to tweak this / change it based on discussion and input from the group.

Since we are a larger group of syndicate members + affiliates, I'd still like the entire group to give input on books they want us to back. We can do this through polling.

However, I also want to make sure the SYNDICATE has a vote, since the inclusion on non-syndicate affiliates might skew the actual vote. I'm wondering then...

1) Do we only let the syndicate members vote, while allowing everyone in this group make recommendations / join discussion in the December 2015 / given month thread?

2) Do we do a few votes, first all members here, then refine that and let the syndicate members vote on #1?

3) Is there a radically different way to do this that allows the syndicate member to have a fair say?

Option 2 sounds like a good idea. I do think those with real money involved should have the final say.

I also see that in some cases books that are brought forth might have already been supported by a percentage, so that could have a bearing in someone's vote.

And those who are in the group as an affiliate could potentially decide to pay for a particular book one month, but have the ability to opt out of the next month. So by letting all members participatein a preliminary vote and then the 'shareholders' make the final vote might be the best way to go.

I'm with Melissa in that I think option 2 is the best. That way everyone can have a say in the initial selection which acts sort of like a primary for books which selects the final list of candidates on which the paid syndicate members vote.
The new question this brings is which books make it past the primary? The top 2, 3, 5?

Melissa wrote: "Option 2 sounds like a good idea. I do think those with real money involved should have the final say.

I also see that in some cases books that are brought forth might have already been supported..."

+1