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.

[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.

[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.

[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. :)

[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?