New Voting Procedures

[Okri]

I think what's most noteworthy is the very specific fact that now 50% + 1 is what is required to win, whereas before it was simply 20% + 1 (at minimum = essentially, the most votes won). So I don't see how anything other than mid range films winning is even possible - or as Eric would state, the most lukewarm film of the line-up.

[Mister Tee]

To elaborate on why I think voters ranking a top three (about which either I or the initial Variety report hallucinated) would be a better system than what they've actually instituted:

1) There've got to be some voters (older, especially) who'll have difficulty with soemthing this elaborate. Some will probably hand in half-completed ballots. Will that invalidate ALL their votes? Picking a top three is in a realm more can deal with.

2) You're letting people narrow the field themselves -- not letting (potentially) their sixth or seventh place votes be determinative, but isolating on their actual favorites.

3) The potential exists under this system for electoral mischief: people placing films in tenth place because they perceive them to be the biggest threat to their favorite, rather than giving an honest recounting. (This sort of thing has gone on at the critics' voting for years) Hypothetical example: supporters of No Country for Old Men probably viewed There Will Be Blood their toughest rival, and vice versa. Thus, each group might have placed the other film dead last in a list of ten, which could have ended up hobbling both, letting a mid-range film like Juno or Michael Clayton accumulate enough 4th-5th place votes to win out. Yes, such folk will still do their best to hurt the perceived opponent, by leaving the film off the ballot entirely, but the damage they can do that way seems far less potent than what they can do ranking it 10th of 10.

4) The system proposed forces me to contribute to every film, no matter how much I despise it. I may think Juno is godawful -- the plan 9 from Outer Space of its era -- yet I can do no less than add one (potentially crucial) point to its victory total. One assumes most years I can at least find at least three among the ten whose elevation to best picture wouldn't openly offend me.

Is there any way to lobby for this refinement on the sytem?



Edited By Mister Tee on 1251823286

[Mister Tee]

ON EDIT: EITHER I MISREAD THE FIRST TIME, OR VARIETY CHANGED ITS LEAD, BECAUSE I INDEED GOT THAT IMPRESSION, BUT, CHECKING BACK (AFTER SEEING NO ONE ELSE NOTING THE CHANGE), I SEE THEY'RE NOW REPORTING THE SAME AS EVERYIONE ELSE. (I THINK RANKING THE TOP THREE WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER SYSTEM, FRANKLY)

WOULD STILL LOVE TO SEE AN ANALYSIS


Today's Variety article contradicts this info to a degree: it says voters will only be asked to rank their top three selections, which could make it less likely to screw things up.

Or not. I confess -- though I was decent in math and logic, I'm not so far along as to be able to predict what effect this change will have. I'd be very willing to read a thorough analysis, if someone qualified (dws?) was up to trying one.

This is only for best picture, right? Because the same alteration would REALLY play havoc with the acting categories.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1251818847

[OscarGuy]

This would help the Weinsteins win a hell of a lot more. Because they focus on getting people to agree their movies are good movies.

So, I could see this benefiting Crash just fine.

[Eric]

Great. Looking forward to the most lukewarm movie in the lineup winning on a consistent basis.

[The Original BJ]

At least no one is trying to argue that this will help movies like The Dark Knight and Tropic Thunder win Best Picture.

[Okri]

It's stuff the emmys did all the time. They couldn't come right out and say that, though - could they?

[The Original BJ]

“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap.

There are certain taste dangers with more nominees, too, with this group. (Though it is hilarious that this organization keeps changing its rules for the reason that they worry about the taste of their own members. Hahaha.)

That being said, one would have to imagine that this move hurts movies like Crash and A Beautiful Mind -- which would likely have racked up a sizable amount of last-place votes to go with the first-place ones -- though, conversely, a cooler pick like No Country for Old Men might have had a steeper uphill climb under this system.



Edited By The Original BJ on 1251766422

[Damien]

From The Wrap:

Academy Makes Big Changes in Best Picture Voting
By: Steve Pond

When the best picture is named at next year’s Academy Awards, the honor might not go to the film that receives the most votes.


In a major move that could transform Oscar campaigning, and one that the Academy has not talked about until now, voting for the slate of 10 best picture nominees has been changed dramatically.


Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference -- and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.


As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.


It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).

“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap. “You could really get a fragmentation to the point where a picture with 18 or 20 percent of the vote could win, and the board didn’t want that to happen.”

Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.

Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter’s ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.

But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.

If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven…

Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent.


The process is designed to discern a true consensus and uncover, in Davis’ words, “the picture that has the most support from the entire membership.”

But to show that broad support, in most years the best picture winner will need to not only be ranked number one on lots of ballots, but also to be picked number two, three and four.


The rule has the potential to rewrite the strategic rules for Oscar campaigning. In the past, studios and consultants simply fought tooth and nail for those number one votes -- which were, of course, the only votes Academy members could cast. Now it’ll be absolutely crucial to make sure your film is also in the top five on as many ballots as possible.



Maybe that’ll lead to more ads from broad-appeal films that might otherwise have seemed to be out of the running. Or maybe it’ll lead to more negative campaigning: after all, a good chunk of the voters don’t have to like your film the most, as long as you give them reasons to like it better than most of the other contenders.



Academy voters, by the way, don’t know about this yet. “I know people have been wondering about it, and even worrying about it,” says Davis. “At some point we’ll do a mailing, probably in the fall membership quarterly, to make it clear what’s coming up.”


Source URL: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-col....ng_5700