DISQUS

Sean Rawlinson · 2 months ago

That was a great point made. I am indeed worried about the winner for this year if they actually won 'cause people voted lots of #1's or if votes got distributed....

mitch65 · 2 months ago

that was a good explanation, thanks
i actually fully understand it now

i do have one question though, why not just a simple points system?
1st gets 10, 2nd gets 9, etc...
whoever gets the most points wins

Cole_Abaius · 2 months ago

This system isn't that far off from the system you described since the winner would (most likely) do best to have as many first, second, and third place tallies on all of the ballots.

What your describing, if I'm not mistaken, is a tacit version of the Condorcet method of voting. Why not use it? I suppose it's just a matter of style.

I suppose eliminating the weakest link in every round also avoids any situations where two movies tie because Movie A got more #1s but had almost no #2s or #3s while Movie B had very few #1s but had a ton of #2s and #3s. At any rate, having that many finalists is going to be messy no matter what style you use.

However, since they aren't using a strict Condorcet system, there's the possibility that a movie with the most #1s isn't the winner (as displayed above with poor, poor Wizard of Oz), and there's the possibility that a winner doesn't necessarily have to win every head-to-head vote count in order to win.

Statistical abnormalities! Huzzah!

adamcharles · 2 months ago

I second the point system. Works for the Heisman, must be perfect.

In the example listed above you have 1470 votes that are generally inconsequential because their #1 was a middle of the pack consensus. What if each of the Gone With the Wind votes had Wizard of Oz one spot beneath it, but all of the 1470 votes that had other #1's had Wizard of Oz listed at #2 and Gone With the Wind listed at #10? Not only did the film that got the most #1's not win, but the film that possibly got the most #10's DID win all because the voters who picked the 3rd thru 5th most voted for in the #1 spot films were never even considered.

The point system is the only real way to ensure that each vote has a definite say in the outcome.

mitch65 · 2 months ago

Actually, the heisman is where I got the idea

Dave · 2 months ago

Yup... this is the way we vote in our Government in Australia. It seems to have been working well enough here for quite a while.

djjeffhall · 2 months ago

Wouldn't it be easier, and simpler to go with a points system? (Like Major Laegue Baseball does with it's MVP voting.)

Every number 1 votes earns 10 points
#2 Vote earns 9 points
#3 vote earns 8 points

Etc.


Add up the points, declare the winner.


Opps, sorry, someone already beat me to the punch. Still, isn't this easier?

RobHunter · 2 months ago

If "A movie earning just over 10% of the Academy’s favor winning is absurd" then wouldn't that mean the system that's been in place for seventy years is slightly absurd already? Because currently the winning films could be winning with just over 20% right?

Also, thanks for this post Cole as it actually is pretty damn illuminating. I still don't really give a shit, but at least I now understand what I don't care about.

tylerdurden1681 · 2 months ago

So your saying great movies that not all old people love might stand a chance now? Thats great news!

Aleric · 2 months ago

Did Washington have anything to do with making the new system more complicated and time consuming? lol

akaless · 2 months ago

I wrote a paper on this type of voting. It's called Instant runoff voting(IRV) in politics and several countries use it for elections. The problem with IRV, and all systems have problems, is that if nearly everyone ranked Gone With the Wind as their 2nd or 3rd favorite, but hardly anyone gave it #1, it could be eliminated in the first or second round. While it may have been the most widely supported movie, it could lose because of little extreme support. A point system could remedy this, but encounter the opposite problem. If Gone With the Wind was most people's 3rd favorite movie and there was little consensus on 1st or 2nd, It could win, despite being no one's favorite. Either way, it creates a winner that most people approve of rather than a winner that a small majority favor

The Filmatelist · 2 months ago

Thanks for your comments, though your "worries" are really quite nonsensical.

(1) "Academy voters will be confused." You're kidding, right? This preferential system is EXACTLY THE SAME SYSTEM they use in deciding the nominees. Why would they get confused by a system they're already intimately, ritualistically familiar with?

(2) Of course campaigners are still aiming for the top spot! When was the last time a campaign aimed for a niche demographic at the risk of alienating a majority of Academy voters? Never. Films may polarize people, but campaigns rarely do (unless it's overkill). Yes, a film could bring in the golden guy based on the strength of its #2 votes, but it still needs to have enough #1s to make it throught those first several rounds. So lukewarm support won't cut it. They'll need the loyalists and the fans.

(3) Yes, if your #1 gets eliminated and your #2-5 are already in the dumped pile, then #6 is next. Essentially, you're asking the Academy voter "If you had to pick from the remaining films, which would you choose?" I fail to see what's wrong with that. And if, out of principle, a voter chooses not to rank any movie they don't think is "worthy", then their ballot ends right there. Fair and simple.

By this process, you fairly weight preferences without breaking the 1-voter/1-vote rule (something which the point system egregiously violates).

Kevin · 2 months ago

Gee, do you think this new change was due to the AMPAS "allegedly" buckling under all of the negative press complaints that "The Dark Knight" didn't get a nomination for Best Picture? In mathmatical terms, (and in theory) "The Dark Knight" most likely did, in fact, get a a great deal of nominations, just sadly not enough, thus allowing it to fall beneath the top five pictures that did (which DOES NOT mean it was completely ignored, as the media would have you incorrectly believe!). The AMPAS's new nomnination rules are just going to be a time-consuming validation of the voters having to vote more than once for their original vote. What's next? Hiring Regis Philbin to oversee the entire process with his trademark "Is that your final answer?" And if the AMPAS is upset and embarrassed that a movie can win Best Picture by a mere single vote, somebody PLEASE ask the Academy members who DIDN'T vote for "Saving Private Ryan" if they would - to this day - STILL vote for "Shakespeare In Love(!)"

Rob Richie · 1 month ago

Very nice explanation. To address a couple concerns and some points made by other comments:

1. If your first choice loses and your second choice has already lost, your ballot goes to your third choice. One way to think about this is it duplicates what would happen if everyone was standing in a big hall "walking their vote." If my first choice loses, I'd physically move to stand beyond my next choice among those still in the running.

2. Academy voters are already experienced at ranking choices, as they do it already for for nominating best picture and most other categories. There a similarly, but somewhat different algorithm is used (see www.choicevoting.com).

3. You express concern that some films will try to win by being lots of people's second and third choices, but that's actually not too smart. As your example shows, you need substantial first choice support to have a chance to win. So just go all out to make your case, and hope a lot of people rank you first and a lot of others rank you highly.

4. It's not a problem that a film initially in second or third place might win. That's the point of the system, obviously -- to ensure victory for the strongest film that has a lot of first choice support.

5. For those who think a point system might be good, the problem is your ballot then counts for both your first choice and your other choices at the same time. It then introduces more "gaming" of the system. For instance, you might rank last the film you think is the strongest competitor to your first choice -- not because you don't like it, but because you don't want it to defeat your first choice.

More on this system at www.instantrunoff.com
www.fairvote.org/irv and
http://www.irvinla.org/