First Post-Oscar Nominations Predictions

[Zahveed]

Zahveed, I don't think there's really any reason for you to have to defend the brevity of your post. As a succinct observation, it spoke for itself.

It ties into the fact I just wanted something to say. But I digress.

[flipp525]

Zahveed, I don't think there's really any reason for you to have to defend the brevity of your post. As a succinct observation, it spoke for itself.



Edited By flipp525 on 1201539293

[OscarGuy]

Who said it had to split evenly.

Candidate A & B both loved by 53% of the membership, but they can't decide who they like better, so they split.

Candidate C liked by 30% of the membership.

Candidate A & B split 29%/24%. Not an even split, but still resulting in C winning. That's your problem, you say it's impossible. Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable sure, but not impossible. You can't say for absolute certain that a vote split has not or cannot occur. I'm not saying it has or has not occurred. As I originally said, I can see both yours AND Magilla's points on this. Just because I happen to defend Magilla's theory with mathematical possibilities does not mean I am 100% on anyone's side here. I'm just showing how it's POSSIBLE to happen...again, not how it has or will happen.

[Zahveed]

Everyone likes to argue. It's human nature.

Stunning insight, as always Zahveed. Hobbes?

I had a more compelling statement to post but I couldn't word it right, so I decided against it altogether. It was just in regards to OG's statement in Italiano liking to argue, and since it was a minute line to begin with I didn't see any point in having an elaborate post. I just wanted to say something.

[ITALIANO]

that the third contender is not preferred by more than 30% of the membership and perhaps even disliked by 70%...

Yes, but Oscar Guy - still more liked than the other four!!!

Is it so difficult to understand that if you have FIVE nominees 30% of the votes is A LOT?!

Not if 50% of voters prefer TWO actors over the third. That's the problem you're not seeing. A vote split occurs when people can't decide which of TWO is better that a third that, while with sizable support, can come out on top because the 50% who thought A & B were best split on which one to vote for and 3rd, who at least 50% of voters didn't think was one of the top 2 contenders, gets voted in with less than 30%.

You're acting like each voter can have only ONE favorite. They have to CHOOSE one, but that doesn't mean they have only ONE favorite. That's where I don't think you're grasping the concept and it's a point you seem to ignore. If 50% of voters think candidates A & B are the best of the year, that's a clear plurality of voters. However, when forced to choose only one of the two, they split which direction it should be honored and a minority voter pick takes the prize. It's really that simple.

It's simple because it's an abstraction - and like all abstractions, it's not rooted in reality. The idea that more than 50% of voters have TWO favorites (and the SAME two favorites) and are torn between them, is abstract, almost impossible. The idea that they would split exactly in half in their vote - then damaging both nominees - is, again, abstract, almost impossible. And thinking that vote-splitting only happened to those two nominees and ONLY between those two nominees (just because Big Magilla said it?) and not, for example, between the eventual winner and a fourth movie (statistically, even other movies could suffer a similar problem) is also an abstraction. This theory is completely absurd: not only nobody can prove it, but it's actually very easy to prove that if it happens at all, it's only in VERY rare occasions - and anyway, in the end, if the eventual winner could still count on 30% of the votes, it did deserve to win - with five nominees, 20% plus one vote would be enough.

I can even prefer four nominees, not just two, over the one which will win, and have all my doubts because I like all four in the same way. Does this mean that my final choice is unfair to the three I didn't vote for? Maybe - but still you can't say that those four movies would have deserved to win just because I wasn't sure which one I'd give my vote to. Human doubts are very interesting in dramas and in movies, but we can't use them to explain why our favorite has lost - first of all because it's a coward-ish approach, and also because while we can be sure of votes, we can't be sure of doubts - except maybe our own personal doubts, but definitely not those of a very large group.

In a democratic election it's only our first choice - the BEST - which counts and leads to what (rightly or wrongly) is officially the BEST in the group. And while we can wonder why that group made a certain choice - and we can think of any psychological, social, political, emotional explanation - one thing we can't do: to come out with a reason which is either too banal (as Sabin said, vote-split is a factor in any outcome which is not unanimous) or, if taken seriously, completely absurd and abstract.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1201543780

[Akash]

Everyone likes to argue. It's human nature.

Stunning insight, as always Zahveed. Hobbes?

[Steph2]

The only time I think we can reasonably speculate (and yes, there are reasonable and unreasonable speculations) about vote "splitting" as opposed to vote "siphoning" is when the same actor is nominated twice. If actors were allowed to be nominated twice in the same category (Sean Penn for 21 Grams and Mystic River, let's say) that would certainly be the easiest case of an actor losing because fans of his/her work were "split" between two films. In the case of the Oscars, it's more difficult because you can only be nominated twice in different categories. Even so, one could probably say that fans of Julianne Moore in 2002 were split between Far From Heaven and The Hours, resulting in a loss in both categories.

But again, this is still just speculation.

[OscarGuy]

that the third contender is not preferred by more than 30% of the membership and perhaps even disliked by 70%...

Yes, but Oscar Guy - still more liked than the other four!!!

Is it so difficult to understand that if you have FIVE nominees 30% of the votes is A LOT?!

Not if 50% of voters prefer TWO actors over the third. That's the problem you're not seeing. A vote split occurs when people can't decide which of TWO is better that a third that, while with sizable support, can come out on top because the 50% who thought A & B were best split on which one to vote for and 3rd, who at least 50% of voters didn't think was one of the top 2 contenders, gets voted in with less than 30%.

You're acting like each voter can have only ONE favorite. They have to CHOOSE one, but that doesn't mean they have only ONE favorite. That's where I don't think you're grasping the concept and it's a point you seem to ignore. If 50% of voters think candidates A & B are the best of the year, that's a clear plurality of voters. However, when forced to choose only one of the two, they split which direction it should be honored and a minority voter pick takes the prize. It's really that simple.

[Akash]

No, Aakash, don't retreat... We need those like you here. This board is changing finally.

Aw, thanks Marco. Though judging from the time capsule that appeared a few weeks ago, I don't really see how this board has "changed" at all over the years.

[ITALIANO]

that the third contender is not preferred by more than 30% of the membership and perhaps even disliked by 70%...

Yes, but Oscar Guy - still more liked than the other four!!!

Is it so difficult to understand that if you have FIVE nominees 30% of the votes is A LOT?!

[Zahveed]

Everyone likes to argue. It's human nature.

[OscarGuy]

It was one, minimal case scenario, Italiano. I can provide thousanda of other permutations that would achieve the same result based on the criteria that the third contender is not preferred by more than 30% of the membership and perhaps even disliked by 70%...

And I don't know, nor can anyone else, that vote splitting has or will occur. It's merely one of many theories to explain unusual outcomes. Vote siphoning is far more likely than actual vote splitting, but since this is a debate over a complete unknown (we don't have access, nor will we ever to the data) issue.

Sometimes, I think you just like to argue.

[ITALIANO]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here all the time. I'll retreat again. Carry on.

No, Aakash, don't retreat... We need those like you here. This board is changing finally.

[ITALIANO]

isn't any outcome in which the final tally is not unanimous a vote split?

Yes, this is the only way that vote-splitting can have a sense.

And no, Oscar Guy, please re-read what I wrote - your mathematics didn't prove that Big Magilla's theory is right - quite the opposite: it proved that it can only happen under extremely rare circumstances - IF at all.

[Akash]

Exactly Sabin. Thank you. I decided to poke my head in just to browse some of the threads after the SAG awards and what do I find? A pointless argument about this ludicrous idea of "vote splitting" applied to races for which we can never really know what people were thinking when they cast their votes.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here all the time. I'll retreat again. Carry on.