The main thing is to publish the list online in such a way that people have to click and go to a new page to see each element in the list.
It took me a moment to realize this isn't about lists, but about ranking of subjective values for a group. Start with Arrow's Theorem, and that's even without the problem of mapping multidimensional values onto a single ordinal ranking.
number 3 is really just punting the problem to "how do you pick rules that your selectorate agrees on". If you had this agreement, then #1 would have worked. Or perhaps #3 is just #2 with a veneer of voting - the rulemaker is really deciding.
Also, you left off at least one actual working method for real-world ranking: bidding and payment. This translates nebulous personal values into a common measurement (the bidding currency, which may not be money - it could be time or some other resource). To some extent, this is voting model with unequal weighting.
In prioritizing stories at work, we use negotiation and consensus rather than strict voting, with a fallback to authority when necessary (rarely).
There's a ton of work done on the problem of governance (which this is, just disguised as the problem of list making).
Liquid Democracy, Futarchy, and Quadratic Voting are all examples of cool answers to the question: How can we get groups to make good decisions?
Do you have reason to think that readers here would generally select model 1 automatically? That wouldn't have been my expectation.
(Model 1 and its variants 3 and 4 have a big advantage: they are easy to implement.)
Suppose you are trying to create a list. It may be of the "best" popular science books, or most controversial movies of the last twenty years, tips for getting over a breakup or the most interesting cat gifs posted in the last few days.
There are many reasons for wanting to create one of these lists, but only a few main simple methods: