What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues?
150, man that's a lot of Plagues. The Egyptians were only visited with, like, 7, right?
OK, now I'll actually read the post, just had to get that out of the way.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Interesting idea, but I think the idea of de-selecting makes the hall less of an honor which probably runs contrary to your goal.
My big hall idea has been posted here before, with all the debate about steroids and even the dumb debate about unanimous selections there a simple method which honors the current system while alleviating some of these issues. Every voter can score a candidate from 0 to 10. to be elected you have to receive 75% of the total points available. For instance if there are 200 voters you need 1500 points for enshrinement.
To me this is a great solution for the problems mentioned above.
Example 1: you are a voter who hates the steroid era, but really there's no denying that Bonds was a likely HOF'er before he ever touched the stuff, Give him 7 points. You're saying that you have reservations without torpedoing him completely and there will likely be enough 8's, 9's and 10's to get a deserving candidate over the hump.
Example 2: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren't unanimous so by God nobody will be on your watch. Instead of being left in the indefensible position of leaving Greg Maddux off your ballot entirely (really?) maybe you say, "Hey he's an obvious HOF'er, and the greatest pitcher of his era, but he's no Cy Young or Walter Johnson." Score him a 9 and voila he's not a perfect score but you aren't left looking like a jackass for leaving him off your ballot merely to ensure he doesn't score a unanimous induction.
It adds a layer of bragging rights for high scores, but makes a perfect score practically impossible, and defensibly so, while still retaining the flavor of the 75% threshold. It also makes shifts in perception more logical and incremental than a binary Yes/No system. Never understand how a guy gradually gains votes for 15 (now 10) years. What did he have a good season? But with this scoring method, lets say you go back and revisit Bert Blyleven, and realize you didn't know how much better than the average schmoe he was until you started looking at the advanced stats. So you upgrade him from a 6 to a 7 or 8. even though that is in essence switching from a No, to a Maybe or a Yes, it's a smaller leap than just flipping the switch.