^ That would be an okay "quick and dirty" way of doing it, but the element it lacks is dialogue between the voters. I participated in some pretty serious polls ranking historical baseball players and one of the most useful things was hearing others make their cases for a certain player. Maybe they didn't convince me enough to move their guy as high as they had him, but often it did convince me to make some changes.
I think the ideal system would separate ranking from getting the top 100. You'd take turns nominating a few pairs at a time and if any of the others (or two of the others, or three, depending on the size of the committee) thought it might not be top 100 material, it would be set aside. Only the unanimous choices go through. Then, when you are done with that, you revisit the previous nominees do more of a system like you said - the highest get in. All along, people could make cases for why they nominated something or why they didn't consider them a lock.
Once you have the 100, you can rank them or not. If you wanted to rank them, you'd ask people to give 10 shoes 1, a 2, etc. and then add up the scores.
The other reason why I think you need a forum as opposed to just combining a bunch of lists is that there are so many AF1s, people are liable to completely forget about pairs. That doesn't happen when everybody is making decisions together.
You's also have to get people to agree to rules beforehand. For example, I'd have to say no PEs, no hyperstrikes, no samples. It just creates a big gap in people's inherent tastes. You can have 1 guy vote for purple highs and another vote for indy jewels, not problem. But, you can't have 1 person vote for Vibes and the next guy vote for Gold highs - at that point, you might as well be rating two entirely different models.
