> Hey, here's a question: if I really dislike something -- like, say if > I think the idea that Iron Man or Batman get a Hugo is absolutely > nauseating -- is it better for me to give such a thing a 5 out of 5, > or is it better to not number it at all, in the voting? Steve, this > sounds like a question for you....
Ah, the Mysteries of the Australian ballot system. The biggest mystery is why it's called an Australian ballot, since a completely different definition appears when you google the term. It should be called a preferential ballot or ranked choice ballot. And Wikipedia's explanation it is in an article called Instant Runoff Voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting The Transatlantic Fan Fund uses the same system and provides a concise summary. TAFF uses a preferential ballot system which guarantees automatic runoffs until a majority is obtained. You rank the candidates in the exact order of your preference for them. If the leading first-place candidate does not get a majority, the first-place votes for the lowest-ranking candidate are dropped, and the second-place votes on those ballots are counted as first-place votes. This process repeats itself until one candidate has a majority. Your votes for second and third place are important, but you may give your candidate only one ranking on your ballot. In order to win, a candidate must receive at least 20 percent of the first-ballot first-place votes on both sides of the Atlantic, separately. Any candidate failing to receive this minimum percentage on either side will be dropped, and the second- place votes on their ballots counted as first-place votes in the next ballot count. I'm sure I've read somewhere the ways to game this system, but I don't remember. In practice there appears to be little value in either ranking a nominee fifth or not listing it at all. It is your first place choice that is important. If your choice for first garners the least votes in the first round, your second-place choice is what allots your vote to the next round. If that choice is lowest, then your third-place choice is alloted. It's possible that five rounds will be needed to determine a victor. It seems as if then not naming the offender at all is better than taking the chance you'll be putting it over 50% by placing it fifth and having it alloted. Theoretically therefore, leaving it off is the better choice. But in practice, as I said, it shouldn't matter much. (To be fair, Australia does use a version of this system, but throws out all votes that do not rank all candidates.) Now, if anybody is still reading, the programming committee uses the same system as Us magazine. Celebrities will get enormous number of panels. People with product to push (recent novels, Hugo nominations, etc.) will get a few slots. People who Know Somebody will get a slot. Ordinary people get nothing whatsoever. Steve --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
