The article in question seemed to be putting forward the case that the Hugo Awards don't choose good-quality works very often because they are (in effect) a popularity contest with a lot of low-information voters involved. There is no indication the article's writer was theorising the existence of a Shadowy Cabal that decides who will be nominated and who will win the Hugo in a particular year. I know this has happened before and I can well understand your reaction to such claims but I do not think it applies here.
If anything the article seems to be supportive of Secret Cabals, suggesting that juried awards (the Clarkes etc.) select better quality works than the Worldcon members do as the juries are more expert and more focussed in their deliberations. The selection of said juries is done in the shadows and smoke-filled rooms with no public accountability or input unlike the open accessibility to a Hugo ballot for all.
The Hugos are a popularity contest, a Delphic election similar to the Oscars where large numbers of people vote on what they like. A juried award is an academic operation more focussed on intrinsic quality; award jury members often come forward and explain publicly afterwards why they chose a particular work, something that is not applicable to the shotgun Hugos.
no subject
The article in question seemed to be putting forward the case that the Hugo Awards don't choose good-quality works very often because they are (in effect) a popularity contest with a lot of low-information voters involved. There is no indication the article's writer was theorising the existence of a Shadowy Cabal that decides who will be nominated and who will win the Hugo in a particular year. I know this has happened before and I can well understand your reaction to such claims but I do not think it applies here.
If anything the article seems to be supportive of Secret Cabals, suggesting that juried awards (the Clarkes etc.) select better quality works than the Worldcon members do as the juries are more expert and more focussed in their deliberations. The selection of said juries is done in the shadows and smoke-filled rooms with no public accountability or input unlike the open accessibility to a Hugo ballot for all.
The Hugos are a popularity contest, a Delphic election similar to the Oscars where large numbers of people vote on what they like. A juried award is an academic operation more focussed on intrinsic quality; award jury members often come forward and explain publicly afterwards why they chose a particular work, something that is not applicable to the shotgun Hugos.