Fwd: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters

Replied to Dennis instead of to the group like I meant to.

(Sorry Dennis, you're getting this twice).

Barry


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Barry Haworth <[email protected]>
Date: 27 August 2015 at 13:29
Subject: Re: [SF-LIT] Who Won the Hugos and Why It Matters
To: Dennis Fischer <[email protected]>


I was vaguely aware of the Sad Puppy business earlier this year, but
the results in this year's voting are very disturbing. Not so much
because of the puppies, but because of the scorched earth reaction to
them.

As I undertand it, the puppies selected a bunch of works to promote,
and had enough numbers to get puppy nominations exclusively in some
categories.  Turns out this isn't hard - the number of people who
actually vote in the Hugos isn't too big (more on this later), and
since nominations are first past the post a couple of hundred people
voting for the same work is enough to get it in, past the unfocussed
voting of others voting for many, many other possible works.

Which is a problem which needs to be fixed, definitely, but so far
though somewhat dubious it is nothing illegal - nothing that any other
organised campaign might not do. It is the reaction that rankles with
me.  In the figures I have seen, of the 5,950 people who voted this
year, overthan 3,000 - more than half - voted "no award" in all
puppy-only categories.  This implies that the only reason they were
voting at all was to deny awards to people with whom they disagreed.
Frankly, it is very bad for the genre, and for the Hugos, if the
biggest voter turnout of all time is because of one group of people
trying to deny a voice to another group.

My 2 cents.

What really surprised me, though, was how few votes are involved.
This year's 5,950 seemed on the low side for something as prestigious
as the Hugos (and the fact that it is 5,950 out of 11,300 makes it
even worse), but this is a huge step up on last year's 3,587, which is
almost double the 1848 votes in 2013.  I looked up vote counts on the
Hugo web site and the numbers I found were:

2015   5950
2014   3587
2013   1848
2012   1922
2011   1813
2010   1094
2009   1074
2008   745
2007   471
2006   567
2005   543

(Note:  these numbers are either total votes, or else the number of
votes for best novel where no total figure is given.)

You don't have to go back very far to get numbers which are very low
indeed.  Sort of makes the whole business seem very shakey.

If the Hugos are to have any sort of credibility going forward then
the voting needs to be fixed.  First, the nomination process needs to
be sorted out to prevent one faction dominating.  Not sure how, but
one way might to be to reduce the number of nominations per person, or
increase the number of nominated works.  At present each person can
nominate five works for five total places, which means a bloc voting
for the same five can fill the category.  If every person could only
make one nomination, or if only one nomination was counted from each
person, that would be harder.  Alternatively, if the five votes
counted towards ten nominees that would also make it harder to
dominate a cateogry.

Second, I think there shuld be a rule against "Scorched Earth" voting,
such that the votes of anyone who votes more than one or two "No
Award" should be disallowed.  The goal is to pick the best science
fiction after all, not to nuke the people you dislike.

About the only positive thing I can think of out of all this is that
it has made me a lot more aware of the process by which the Hugos are
selected.  One thing which I will do is see about voting myself next
year - I'll never get to Worldcon (wrong side of the Pacific, dammit),
but a voting membership isn't very expensive.

I expect that next year's awards will be interesting.

Finishing on a more immediate note, did anyone here vote in this
year's Hugos, or attend Worldcon?

Barry

I am a Statistician. One false move and you're a Statistic.


Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters
Click to Open Overlay GalleryGuests fill the auditorium at the Hugo
Awards in Spokane, Washington, August 22, 2015. Holly Andres for WIRED


-- 
I am a Statistician.  One False move and you're a Statistic.