![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Thanks to this exchange, I have once again gotten into a discussion with someone who thinks it's Wrong that people must pay so much to vote for the Hugo Awards and that the Award's significance is diminished accordingly.
As part of this exchange, I commented on the fact that 90% of the existing eligible voters are not nominating or voting on the Hugo Awards. I suggested that those people who want to vote but aren't willing to stump up $50 for a supporting membership should go looking for people who already have Worldcon memberships but won't vote, and pair up with them. That's a winner all around -- we get increased participation in the Hugo Awards, and the people who think payment is Unfair get to vote for free.
As part of this exchange, I commented on the fact that 90% of the existing eligible voters are not nominating or voting on the Hugo Awards. I suggested that those people who want to vote but aren't willing to stump up $50 for a supporting membership should go looking for people who already have Worldcon memberships but won't vote, and pair up with them. That's a winner all around -- we get increased participation in the Hugo Awards, and the people who think payment is Unfair get to vote for free.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 10:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 10:46 pm (UTC)In all seriousness, I may not think like Kevin does, but he encouraged me to buy the membership and vote, so I suppose that counts for something.
-kat
no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 11:32 pm (UTC)But sometimes, you just have to recognize that a troll is indeed just a troll and walk away.
But, thanks for all your hard work on behalf of WSFS.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-24 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 01:20 am (UTC)Ah. Is this now an official syndrome? Good to know. I've seen the symptoms sporadically for years.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 12:52 am (UTC)I can just imagine the "Vote for X" parties.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 01:21 am (UTC)The beer would probably be better.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 01:59 am (UTC)But I'm at least as concerned about how less than 10% of the 6000 or so people who are eligible to vote actually do so. I don't think this follows from "only the usual folks vote" because there's thousands of people not voting for whom it would cost them nothing additional to do so. I've always voted in every election in which I was eligible to vote. I don't always nominate everywhere because of "no coverage," but I always make an attempt, and I can't conceive of not voting in an election where I was eligible. I'd like to know why the other 90% ignore the ballot.
Not Nominating and Not Voting
Date: 2008-03-25 04:28 am (UTC)My Two Cents,YMMV
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 07:01 am (UTC)You need a ribbon that reads "CREEPY NERD HUGO BODYGUARD".
Heck, before I go to another Worldcon, I need a T-shirt that reads "THE CREEPY NERD HUGO BODYGUARDS ARE OUT TO GET ME!!!"
As an intellectual exercise, if the cost of a supporting membership was reduced, at what price point would it temp a theoretical potential Hugo nominee to set up sock puppets, buy multiple memberships, and rig the nomination and the vote?
Say a supporting membership is $10. Would some potential nominee think it might be a valid promotional expense (or ego trip) to spend, oh, $200 to get an additional 20 nominations given that it's often only a handful of votes that decides who gets nominated?
Of course, the lower the price, the more people would nominate, presumably, and therefore the spread would be wider and would be harder to buy enough votes to make a difference.
As John Scalzi points out, there is a benefit to an author just to be nominated. And if an author has works in more than one category, the same amount of cash would be even more cost effective.
Also theoretical: could somebody set up system whereby non-nominating and voting members could sell their membership to those who want to nominate and vote for $10 or $20 more than the membership cost, then buy the membership back at "face value", thus technically selling the voting rights for the difference?
I note that this is purely conjecture, and I am in no way advocating or supporting such voting irregularities. Please call off the "CREEPY NERD HUGO BODYGUARDS!!!"
no subject
Date: 2008-03-26 07:12 pm (UTC)I like it, it works for me. I just don't read any of the new fiction any more. Hmm, I'm not sure I ever did. If there was someone who wanted to help me out by recommending things to nominate, I'd would have been happy to do so.
Every time this is brought up, I'm amazed that The Hugo is held in such high esteem by so many people, especially as I rarely see it on any media other than an occasional book. Do any of the movies or TV shows that have won The Hugo ever mention it in their websites or on their DVDs or on IMDB?