Elections Have Consequences

[kevin_standlee]

Something that I think most people have forgotten is that Worldcons happen in the real world and are subject to real-world conditions. Among other things, Worldcons have to obey the laws of the place in which they are held, no matter what their governing documents say.

An overwhelming majority of the members of WSFS who voted on the site of the 2023 Worldcon (at the 2021 Worldcon in DC) selected Chengdu, China as the host of the 2023 Worldcon. That meant that the members of WSFS who expressed an opinion accepted that the convention would be held under Chinese legal conditions. Furthermore, those people (including me) who suggested that there might be election irregularities were overridden, shouted down, fired from their convention positions, and told that they were evil and probably racist for even suggesting such a thing.

When it comes to local law, this could end up applying anywhere. Here's an example I can use because as far as I know, there are no Worldcon bids for Florida at this time. Imagine a Worldcon held in Florida. It would be subject to US and Florida law (and any smaller government subdivision). Given legislation passed by Florida, it would not surprise me if such a hypothetical Florida Worldcon's Hugo Administration Subcommittee would disqualify any work with LGBTQ+ content, any work with an LGBTQ+ author, or any LGBTQ+ individual, because the state has declared them all illegal under things like their "Don't Say Gay or Trans" laws and related legislation.

This does not seem that farfetched to me, and Florida isn't the only place where I could see it happening.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

The cries of "racism" faded away as the convention approached, for reasons I don't know, and it gradually became more acceptable to criticize the idea of holding a Worldcon under the Chinese government. At first the critics were largely Muslims who were concerned about China's treatment of the Uyghurs. The conversation shifted significantly when Lukianenko supported the Ukraine invasion, and Cixin Liu got criticism for supporting the government's stance on Uyghurs. (In the latter case, I think he was just doing what was necessary to avoid having his career destroyed or worse.) One person commented on my blog that I seemed racist in suggesting that the Chengdu bid was probably bought, but she didn't say anything like that when I talked with her about the con a few months later.

I'm still not sure why the shift happened.

[kevin_standlee]

I know that for now, I will advise that any Worldcon bid reject electronic voting and require paper ballots and more safeguards against "rushing" the election the way I think happened in 2021. There is also some pending legislation that might make it a little harder. I note that there are people who insist that requiring a postal mailing address (not just email) violates European privacy laws. I'm intrigued that such people would have no problem with local law overriding the WSFS Constitution, but would be up in arms about local law affecting what would be legal to have as a Hugo Award finalist.

[alanfleming]

As a professional who deals, albeit not all of the time, in these privacy laws, I can safely say these people know not enough of what they speak. They make two mistakes. Firstly, that data acquisition and retention can take place if it is justifiable. And gathering identifiable information goes on right now, in Europe, to determine right to vote.

The second, fundamental one, is that these laws themseves, do not say what is right or wrong. They encompass principles to be adhered to, but in the legislation itself, recognise this is a journey, not a test to be graded. As long as you are doing things better, that is in your favour.

I need to get more vocal about this in fannish communities I think. There are many people who don't understand the nuance in the legislation.

[kevin_standlee]

Hear, hear! Using privacy laws as a cudgel that prevents anything is like the all-too-common use of "'elf & safety" to essentially declare that everything is too dangerous to be done.

At the rate we've been going, we'll have to stop holding in-person conventions because they're too dangerous and because individuals might have to show their faces in public in violation of "privacy" laws.

[alanfleming]

I get that we all have a desire to do the right thing, and as convention-runners have a responsibility, often legal, to others (and their personal data).

However, what we don't have for data protection - is an accurate and informed assessment of the risks and, most importantly, the actual liability if these risks happen. And that might be a little complicated, given the international membership of conventions.

So we're treating data protection like H&S by analogy of risk - and that really isn't correct.

(which is a long-winded way to say, I agree).

[madfilkentist]

I'm reminded of the time when some people said that asking if you're vaccinated violates "HIPPA" (misspelling obligatory).

[beatrice_otter]

The first rush of objections to Chengdu that I saw when the voting was still in process of happening were leaning hard on racism to try and raise an outcry so that people would ... I don't know, throw out the Chengdu votes or something. But it backfired because people reacted to that, without also addressing the actual serious issues with hosting a major international convention in a country with a totalitarian and oppressive government. I don't know if there was any way Chengdu could have been prevented from winning, given the ballots sent in, without throwing out the rules, but I doubt it. I saw a number of people who seemed to think you could just say "we don't like China!" and throw out all those nominations. And once the initial rush of emotion (and people trying to use fearmongering to break the rules) was over and it was too late to change anything, then you got sober and reasoned analysis of all the problems and potential problems.

[kevin_standlee]

I don't know if there was any way Chengdu could have been prevented from winning, given the ballots sent in, without throwing out the rules....

If all of the likely-looking duplicates, it might have made a difference. Almost none of the ballots had addresses on them. Long runs of them all had the same email address. I don't mean a couple (like my wife using my email address because she doesn't use email), I mean dozens. Now so many ballots were rushed in at the last minute that they might still have won. But I think there were shenanigans. And the precedent appears to me to say that if you have $300,000 going spare, you just can "vote the phone book" and use the same address for every single voter, and the administering convention should just shut up and take your money. And if someone says, "Oh, but it it's in English and I know where the addresses are, I could see that it was obvious," then I suggest a form of racism there, in that it's okay for someone else to flood the election with votes that can't really be verified, but if I do it, then it's wrong.

No, I don't have $300K to throw at such a thing. I do sort of wish I could, just to prove the point.

I don't care about race. If someone could convince me that those 3000 voters were actually all individual natural persons spending their own money (not having it poured into their hands by whoever was bankrolling the bid), I'd say okay, fine, them's the breaks. But we now seem to have a situation that any entity that thinks that holding a Worldcon is a Good Think who has a quarter million dollars lying around from their tourism fund can simply purchase the election. Is that a good thing?

[billroper]

The cynic in me says "It depends on how badly your convention needs the income from those supporting memberships."

[kevin_standlee]

You're not the only cynic. Those memberships contributed more than $100,000 to DisCon III. (The advance supporting memberships went to the winning bid, of course.) BTW, I do not have the exact number of memberships thrown at DC 3, other than seeming to recall that a lot more memberships rolled in than ballots attached to them, so whoever was throwing that money around wasn't doing it all that well. It just was enough to outvote Winnipeg.

[lsanderson]

Let's see if I've got this right, Fans vote to hold a Worldcon in a politically repressive country. Fans are now outraged that repressive politics affect Worldcon Hugo awards?

[kevin_standlee]

Yep, that appears to be about the size of it.

[timill]

Some fans vote...
Different fans (only some of whom voted, and probably not for Chengdu) are now outraged...

[billroper]

Kevin, I respect you greatly, but I am unaware of how Florida laws regulating elementary school curriculums could possibly impact the eligibility of individuals or works for a Hugo nomination. If, as a Bylaws wonk, you can manage to find the appropriate citations in Florida law, I'd be greatly interested in reading them.

[ravan]

IIRC, the Florida laws don't just apply to elementary schools, they apply all the way up through university level, and I would imagine also to educational non-profits (which, IIRC, WSFS is.) No, I don't have cites, and I don't dig in sludge.

[kevin_standlee]

WSFS is an unincorporated association, not necessarily an educational one. Most US Worldcons are run by 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations, but that doesn't necessarily make the educational. Also, WSFS doesn't run Worldcons. You wouldn't want an unincorporated association running a million-dollar corporation; the financial risk is too high. But I wouldn't put it past some states to declare that any non-profit organization of any sort that "promotes LGBTQ+" is prohibited.

[kevin_standlee]

Bill: The Florida laws, like those from the dozens of other states, are simply part of the wedge that is trying to make trans people flat-out illegal. Something like 250 bills were filed this year already that do things like declaring trans people to not exist (including reversing birth certificates that have been previously changed), and other pretty unpleasant things. I'm not saying that any state has yet declared that all LGBTQ+ content is illegal, but they darn well are working their way up to it. Florida is already on the list of "Do Not Travel" states for trans people, and other states are coming pretty close to it, like Utah, which yesterday passed (lower house only, but it's only a matter of time) a law making it a crime for someone to use a public restroom that doesn't match their gender assigned at birth.

In any event, I don't think it's much of a stretch that some state is going to criminalize all LGBTQ+ content, so that the very mention of it is a crime. Yes, it shouldn't be legal under the first amendment, but that won't stop IMO. They'll just ignore court orders given half a chance.

[voidampersand]

+1. It is not about legal or logical consistency. It is about using whatever power they can get away with to oppress other people.

[madfilkentist]

I haven't dug into the Florida "Don't Say Gay" laws, but I've read some legal blogs I trust, and it appears to be true that (1) they're bad, (2) they aren't as broad as many people think, and (3) they're vague enough that people who probably aren't affected might restrict what they do out of caution.

Don't Say Gay etc

[belak]

The "Don't Say Gay" may have limited reach in basis of law, but it is being applied more broadly than written. Schools aren't allowed to having programming that includes any LGBTQI+ basis, but that also means any refuting of info (I'd say data, but it isn't, it's crap) in books or materials, can't be made ("Well, no Timmy, the book says all gays are pedophiles, but in reality, there is no data to support it" and that commentary cannot be made by teachers to kids in any way). That may not apply to any CON directly, but indirectly, that means any CON or 501(c)3 couldn't rent an auditorium from a school or school adjacent, if they *allow* a book that is objectionable by lawmakers, into things like Hugo Awards or a speaker about said book. Not the "intention" of the law, but it is how the writers are happy to have it interpreted. They also are doing great things like "taking this into consideration" and taking months to even take it up, thus delaying a decision past the event date.

We also have to mention "Drag Queen" reading hours or BINGO, those aren't allowed for children in the state, nor can they use school grounds, or so I'm told that is how the law is being interpreted by friends who sadly, live in such a repressed state without many options. While it may not be a part of the law, that is how it is being enforced. A friend tried to attend a gay BINGO night and it was shut down by local police for a variety of reasons, but the basis was that they were gay, and even though no children were involved, the police were going to, ala 1950's style, shut down "those f*gs" and beat the crap out of them if they had to arrested every last one of "them" just to harass them and ruin their night. Again, not the explicit intent of the written law, but the writers are more than happy to have it work out that way.

The laws will likely eventually be struck down when the cases get to a high enough court, but for now, this is what stands. As with some of the more recent laws struck in Texas, they are working through the courts, but that takes time and money or a host of good pro bono attorneys.

Re: Don't Say Gay etc

[kevin_standlee]

I don't think that it would be much of a stretch that these evil laws could end up being extended to say that any facility owned by any government entity (like a Convention & Visitors Bureau controlled by a government agency) can impose these sort of draconian restrictions upon any event held in such a facility.

And as far as the laws being struck down when they reach a high enough court, I fervently hope that you are right, but I fear that with the current composition of the US Supreme Court, they will upload them.

[msconduct]

I read a bit more about this at File 770 and read your comments there. It seems to me that it is a far more racist position to declare that you won't follow the laws of another culture than it is to suggest that a government which is notorious for ignoring human rights might not allow a fair election.

[kevin_standlee]

I think we have a whole bunch of people who are so safe and secure that they cannot conceive of a place where the government would prohibit anything that they consider critical of their government.

And I continue to roll my eyes at the people who say variations of "Well, then WSFS shouldn't have allowed a Worldcon there" or something like that. When you point out how that convention was selected, they seem to think "Someone should have done something about it" and think you're crazy when you explain how WSFS is organized, to the extent that it is organized.

I suppose that's true. Most people, when you show them the detailed structure of the World Science Fiction Society, either think you're lying to them or they think you're out of your mind because no sane person would ever organize something that way.

[wild_patience]

I'm with you. I had the same concerns when it was announced, plus an additional concern if there was a new surge of Covid and non-Chinese members were potentially stuck there.

I have had supporting memberships in recent WorldCons so I could read and vote on the Hugos. I didn't bother with Chengdu. They not only didn't seem to have their act together for a long time, I wasn't sure if the nominees would all be available in English. I was surprised to see as many western nominees on the ballot as they were. I was expecting a much worse result than what we got.

I've been reading the kerfluffle on Blue Sky. It's too bad that works were left off the ballot, declared ineligible for some arcane reason that probably wouldn't fly in a different location. But like other elections, you get what you vote for. I'm just surprised that they were surprised.

[kevin_standlee]

Thank you. I'm sure you can tell that I'm exasperated by people weighing in on this who don't know much about how Worldcon and WSFS works, but have heard of the Hugo Awards and are convinced that they know everything necessary.

Am I unhappy about all of the works/people ruled off the ballot in secret. Darn right that I am. But that was only a symptom of the problem that started when thousands of questionable ballots flooded into DC in late 2021.

CONsequences

[belak]

Sounds like some standard tactics by some folx to ensure things went their way in terms of Chengdu. I am sad to hear of those spreading to a group like this. Shouting people down or shutting them down doesn't make for a fair competition, and drives away those who have an honest interest IMHO.

My concern with those non native visitors to Chengdu was a) as mentioned below, if a new outbreak happened, could you be stuck there for a lengthy time? b) could the government drum up charges against anyone not following the propaganda party lines, c) whether the CON could be run appropriately and d) whether the world conflicts would impact travel or the ability to leave the country when you wished to do so. I was glad to hear you returned unscathed except the sinus issues. Racism isn't the actual issue, as far as I could see, but it is a rallying cry some use when they have nothing else to throw in defense of their position or actions.

Re: people not understanding how WORLDCon membership works--Many years ago I belonged to an international group that had governing boards or membership teams, however, they had some interesting rules that most of the membership did not grasp. One was that there was *no way* to get rid of a member that was acting out or inappropriately, or disharmoniously unless the local group had a 2/3 passing vote to drop that person's membership AND that the international governing board ALSO then had a 2/3 passing vote to remove the membership; or if the member did not pay their dues on time (hint, the problem children always make sure to pay on time so they can't be gotten rid of!). Often, the international governing board would ignore pleas for help from a local governing board/team with a problematic member, causing undue stress on the local membership, which drove good members away. The calls from the local governing boards or concerned members were always "Why can't we remove them from membership rolls if they are causing such disruption to the group?". One would think that would be an appropriate action, or easy to place in the membership rules, but the Standing Rules were not written that way, ergo...problem children everywhere. I did go back and re-read what I was given before I joined and found that there were no references to those Standing Rules that were accessible before one was accepted as a member of the group, which I took up with the governing board before I eventually left the group. Most people don't read the fine print before submitting a membership application, assuming it is even available to them and I suspect most WORLDCon memberships have not read that teeny print, that you've pointed out many times about how it is "run".

[dragoness_e]

Furthermore, those people (including me) who suggested that there might be election irregularities were overridden, shouted down, fired from their convention positions, and told that they were evil and probably racist for even suggesting such a thing.

(Emphasis mine). It has been my experience on the internet that the "go-to" defense by CCP shills for any criticism of CCP government actions is "You are racist against Chinese!" It's a laughable accusation that should be treated exactly that way--laughed out of the venue.

[jonesnori]

I still don't think site selection irregularities necessarily happened. China has a *lot* of science fiction fans, and they legitimately wanted a worldcon there. However, it's clear that the government got involved at some point, from the building of the new site and the date change, which would not have been agreeable to the many student fans. And the nomination counting irregularities are real.

[kevin_standlee]

So presumably have long runs of voters all with the same email address (not just one or two, more like dozens) with no obvious way of disambiguating them isn't a problem, eh?

[billroper]

BTW, I have not been following every possible post on this particular site selection vote, but your post here is the first time that I've seen the "massive duplication of email addresses" statement. Is there an earlier reference?

I have been a bit perplexed by a situation where "Buying a Hugo = BAD", but "Buying a Worldcon = OK".

[jonesnori]

The names were different, were they not? Chinese people are certainly not the only ones to share email (and street) addresses. Supposing that you were among them, how would we be able to know that Kevin Standlee and Lisa Hayes are not the same person?

[kevin_standlee]

Apparently anyone should be able to just vote the phone book, giving the same address for every name listed. But somehow I think that had a long run of names at the same address from the USA had appeared, with consecutively numbered money orders from the same post office paying for the memberships and advance membership (voting) fees, the situation would have been treated differently.

[jonesnori]

Were there, in fact, consecutively numbered money orders from the same P.O.?

[kevin_standlee]

Not in this election. That "consecutively numbered money orders" line is from a Hugo Award nominating scandal a generation earlier. Details if you want them.

[jonesnori]

I am aware of the previous incident. I think that site selection administrators exercised their judgment in both cases, as was appropriate. If the two stories had been combined into one, then the administrators might have decided differently than in the Chengdu case; who knows? I can certainly see why they were unsure, since overlapping email addresses in that quantity isn't something we have been used to seeing.