The more people that vote, the less likely it is people get elected for reasons of friendship, which has been a huge problem for a long time. Baines being the most recent one, but how many of Frankie Frisch's pals are in just because he and his boys liked them? Other kinds of corruption would occur, but the current process is about as bad as can possibly be chosen if the goal is to have some kind of reasonable basis for selections. A dozen insiders with a closed ballot all but guarantees BS results.
I would hope rules would be redesigned to try and combat the blatant corruption rather than being rewritten to try and keep out the known steroid guys, except for David Ortiz, who is exempt from such an implied policy. Put them in or keep them out, a non-corrupt voting basis should take priority over any individual selection. None of us will agree with every choice, but a fairly large number of people have been selected for purely corrupt or political reasons that don't really have any kind of sincere, honest argument for meriting inclusion. If we must have names added every year, they should reasonably be either the best players not in, or the most significant and important players not in, rather than whoever has the most pals on the tiny insider committee that doesn't reveal their votes. Of course, an honest process not designed for corruption will never happen
