Following the announcement of the 2009 Oscar nominees I posted an article talking about Oscar voting and the peculiarities involved with the “preferential tabulation process” or “instant runoff” as it is referred to by Carl Bialik at the Wall Street Journal as he adds his displeasure with the current voting system used by the Academy Awards.
His argument comes complete with graphics, scenarios, eight different ways of voting with several different outcomes and quotes from people such as Michel Balinski, a professor of research at École Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France, calling it “crazy” and Steven Brams, professor of politics at New York University saying he thinks the final vote for the Oscar winner may be even worse than the selection of nominees.
His article is rather in depth so I am going to cherry pick a few items and let you read the rest at your leisure. Let me give you Bialik’s graphic followed by a quote for you to ponder.
Brace yourselves for “Ishtar” defeating “The Godfather.” Suppose 49 voters award “The Godfather” six points and “Ishtar” only four. One voter grants the desert debacle four points and the mafia masterpiece three, and the remaining 49 award “The Godfather” three points and “Ishtar” only one point. “Ishtar” actually wins with a median score of four points compared to “The Godfather’s” three points. Prof. Balinski, in turn, calls range voting a “ridiculous method,” because it can be manipulated by strategic voters.
Of course this is looking at an extreme situation and the article goes on to pose reasons as to why perhaps Rocky beat the likes of Network and Taxi Driver for Best Picture, but as interesting as it is to learn the intricate details of the voting system the fact of the matter is that no voting system will be entirely perfect and bitching and moaning will ensue either way (present company included).
