Worldcon Site Selection Politics

[kevin_standlee]

I am concerned about rumblings over the current Worldcon site selection election. Specifically, I've heard people say that if Kansas City doesn't win, it proves that the relatively new "no-zone" site selection system is broken and needs changing. For heaven's sake, it's only been in full operation for the last three election cycles (the previous three years were a transition period). It takes a lot longer than that to figure out whether a system is working or not. We did three-year lead time for almost twenty years before going back to two years.

The same complaints inform me that the center of the continent will be completely frozen out under "no-zone," and that Denver certainly isn't "Central" (although it looks that way from here in California), but neither is Chicago! That is, Denver is "West" and Chicago is "East." And when I asked about Texas, they told me that it's "South." That means "Central" consists of a pretty small area: Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Oh, and possibly western Illinois and Wisconsin, but not Chicago and not Milwaukee.

Some have pointed to the lack of a Minneapolis Worldcon as further evidence of bias against the center. Minneapolis, for instance, is the fourth largest metropolitan area in the US & Canada to not yet host a Worldcon. But like the old joke about Murray and God, you have to buy a lottery ticket in order to win the lottery, and aside from Minneapolis in '73, there are have been no serious bids from Minneapolis. (Which is a shame, really, because it's a nice city with a good looking convention center and relatively close downtown hotels.)

Frankly, I expect "no-zone" will lead to slightly fewer Worldcons in what was the old Central zone (which did include Chicago and Texas; sorry about that, folks), because Worldcons are now more likely to follow general population demographics, and the edges of the continent have more people living there than the center. But accusations that the con will bounce back and forth between Boston and Anaheim are just silly.

Edit, 11:35: Fixed geographic typo pointed out in comments.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

They are out there bidding, but appear to be concentrating their resources locally: They apparently took in a lot of support and ballots at the Heinlein Centennial last weekend, and they of course have the NASFiC in their back yard in a few weeks. Could it be that they expect that this is sufficient? After all, tactically you can't expect many votes to be cast by the Japanese. I expect there to be fewer than 1,000 votes cast in the election. And we know from last year how important every ballot is apt to be.

(I also remember the election in 1990 in The Hague, when San Francisco's bid got its majority by only one vote. It probably would have won on the next round after redistribution of ballots from fourth-place Phoenix, but it still seemed close.)

I agree with your assessment of the election being theirs to lose. Their showing last December at SMOFCon reinforces my advice to would-be Worldcon runners to not try hosting a SMOFCon during their campaign.

[fla-sunshine.livejournal.com]

Okay, if they can pulling significant BALLOTS out of their local area (and I had completely forgotten about the Heinlein Centenial), they might still have a winning strategy, but they are in significant danger of losing voters that were predisposed favorably to them by their no-shows at Westercons and at this year's Midwestcon (and for reasons obvious to you at Westercon, we have been mostly out of the convention circuit ourselves since November).

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

They've never been at Westercon, have they? It wouldn't be difficult to decide that Westercon is a marginal convention of little political importance. As important as it is to me, I can see that its national and international importance has dropped significantly as the convention has shrunk. (OTOH, Montreal made much better results at Westercon than at BayCon, which was five weeks earlier, in the same hotel, under substantially the same management, and had three times as many attendees.)

Mind you, the only reason Montreal had a presence at Westercon was due to having an Emergency Holographic Canadian module stored in the Bay Area. (Montreal's bid has to preserve resources for NASFiC and Worldcon themselves.) And Lisa enjoyed throwing a party for them. We just wish we could have figured out a way to actually do poutine without having to pay to replace the carpet afterwards.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

Gee, I thought Westercon was the Summer Smofcon!

Summer SMOFCon?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it seems that way sometimes, partially because there are so many Usual Suspects there in a relatively small convention, so it's easier to find them. But I'm unsure this theory holds up under closer scrutiny. There are too many "holes" in the sense of important SMOFS who don't see sufficient value in flying cross-country that weekend.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be difficult to decide that Westercon is a marginal convention of little political importance.

Keep in mind also that the last worldcon was in LA so bids could also easily decide that they had already "covered" the likely West Coast voters . . .

Speaking of site selection politics, I heard a rumor that Montreal is bidding a single hotel without enough coverage for a worldcon and does not have agreements with others. Do you happen to know whether this is true or just a rumor?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The way it was explained to me was that when it came time to file, they included such commitments as they had at that time while continuing to negotiate with other facilities. They are in negotiation with other hotels, but I don't know which other ones with which they've signed right now. For that, I'd have to say you'll get more accurate results by asking them directly.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the clarification!