The Annual You-Shouldn't-Have-to-Pay-to-Vote Messages

[kevin_standlee]

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.

Comments

[gvdub.livejournal.com]

You have to be a member of the Motion Picture Academy to vote for the Oscars. You have to be a member of SFWA to vote for the Nebulas. You have to be a member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences to vote for the Emmys. So it makes sense to me that you have to be a member of Worldcon to vote for the Hugos. Yes, I wish there was greater participation, but membership is really not that onerous a requirement.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I know. I think we should be on one level grateful that people complain about the cost. It means they think the Hugo Award is important. They think the award should belong to "everyone" -- possibly defined as "everyone who thinks like I do."

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

I think the Hugo's should belong to everyone who thinks as Kevin does.

[katster.livejournal.com]

I second that motion.

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

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* Careful about that. I might want to introduce wild-eyed Crazy Radical ideas like only having to pay $20 to vote instead of $50. That wouldn't eliminate the complaints, but it would reduce their credibility somewhat, except for the people who (as sethb noted elsewhere) assume that the default state for every human being is unconditionally-eligible-to-vote.

[amysisson.livejournal.com]

Perhaps they should pay to attend Worldcon and start introducing rules changes about the Hugos at the Business meeting.... Oh wait, that would involve actually being involved.... ;-)

[controuble.livejournal.com]

I stopped at my local library on the way home tonight and picked up all 4 of the books that are not out in paperback. I read Rollback over the weekend (since it is the one that is out in paperback) and started The Last Colony while eating dinner. I DO plan to vote this year!

[bovil.livejournal.com]

You've probably already seen my post on hugo_recommend on voting and eligibility.

[edgreen86.livejournal.com]

I applaud your attempts to educate the masses on this topic.

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.

[crookedfeet.livejournal.com]

i diagnose a severe case of fan entitlement. How dare we give out the Hugos without her involvement! Thank you for soldiering on, Kevin.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

fan entitlement

Ah. Is this now an official syndrome? Good to know. I've seen the symptoms sporadically for years.

[crookedfeet.livejournal.com]

If it isn't, it should be.

[caindog.livejournal.com]

Another modest proposal that might eliminate some (but certainly only some) whining would be to move to on-site-only voting. It's a nightmare all around with several enormous ethical, political, and logistical problems (and is something I strongly do not advocate!) but it might be easier to explain "you can't vote unless you attend" to the average fan.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

*shudder* Oboy, no way, on multiple grounds. You're right, that's an even more modest proposal than my vote-pairing idea.

I can just imagine the "Vote for X" parties.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

I can just imagine the "Vote for X" parties.

The beer would probably be better.

[jcfiala.livejournal.com]

Eh, I agree with her basic point that it costs too much to vote in the hugos, and because of that only the usual folks vote. I'll vote this year, but that's because I bought a membership to Worldcon as it's in my town. But I don't plan on buying a supporting membership until and unless it gets cheaper. (Or, you know, the dollar suddenly sinks to the point where cups of coffee are $16 and the voting rights are thereby effectively cheaper. :)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

It may not be obvious, but I also think the costs are too high. But the only way to bring them down would be to decouple them; that is, set up a separate Hugo-voting-only membership for about $20. No publications other than a postcard with your PIN. Voting online only. No site selection rights, no publications of any sort, and no "carryover" rights to next year, either.

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

[mrshirt.livejournal.com]

Speaking only for myself. I have never nominated for Hugos and only voted once that only for the Campbell for a friend. I never nominate because I rarely read a book, story, or see the movie the year it is eligible; I am anywhere from one to two years behind in reading to over a decade behind. Same goes for voting not having read the nominees it would be random dart throw picks not what anyone wants to see. I could catch up after the nominees are announced if I wanted to and had the time but honestly most of it is not to my taste.

My Two Cents,YMMV

[hai-irouchuujin.livejournal.com]

Kevin:

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!!!"

[nwl.livejournal.com]

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.

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?