E Pluribus Hugo: Out of Many, A Hugo
In this thread we will hammer out the formal language of the proposal, any FAQs we wish to include, and strategize for the presentation at the business meeting itself. At this point, we'll consider the system itself locked in, so we are really only looking at the language.
1. RME instead of 6th place
2. (1,1), (1,2), or (1,2,2) for ties in points
3. Option 2a (if there is a tie for nominations, eliminate the one with fewer points; if there is a tie for both nominations and points, eliminate them both)
There is one more issue that is still up for debate: Should we explicitly empower the Hugo admins to use further tie breakers in the future if they decide it's necessary? I've written the proposal and FAQ explanations assuming that we do, however, a case can be made for not worrying about giving them the power explicitly. We should settle that question here. I think that the way I've written the "empowerment" makes it okay to include it, but for myself, I don't feel a strong need to. I'm definitely not opposed to it, however.
If I've forgotten any signers, please let me know!!
Kilo
Short Title: E Pluribus Hugo (Out of the Many, a Hugo)
Moved, to amend section 3.8 (Tallying of Nominations), section 3.9 (Notification and Acceptance), and section 3.11 (Tallying of Votes) as follows:
Section 3.8: Tallying of Nominations.
3.8.1: Except as provided below, the final Award ballots shall list in each category the five eligible nominees receiving the most nominations. If there is a tie including fifth place, all the tied eligible nominees shall be listed. determined by the following multi-round process described in 3.8.8.
3.8.2: The Worldcon Committee shall determine the eligibility of nominees and assignment to the proper category of works nominated in more than one category.
3.8.3: Any nominations for "No Award" shall be disregarded.
3.8.4: If a nominee appears on a nomination ballot more than once in any one category, only one nomination shall be counted in that category.
3.8.5: No nominee shall appear on the final Award ballot if it received fewer nominations than five percent (5%) of the number of ballots listing one or more nominations in that category, except that the first three eligible nominees, including any ties, shall always be listed.
3.8.6: The Committee shall move a nomination from another category to the work's default category only if the member has made fewer than five (5) nominations in the default category.
3.8.7: If a work receives a nomination in its default category, and if the Committee relocates the work under its authority under subsection 3.2.9 or 3.2.10, the Committee shall count the nomination even if the member already has made five (5) nominations in the more-appropriate category.
3.8.8: The final Award ballots shall list in each category the eligible finalists as determined by successive rounds of a two-phase elimination process. In this process, each member gets a single nomination "point" for each category, and that point will be divided equally among their nominated works in that category.
3.8.8.1: Selection Phase: In each round, all the works having the least number of points will be selected for the Elimination Phase (3.8.8.2). If there is only one work with the least number of points, then all of the works with the second-least number of points will be also be selected for the Elimination Phase in addition to the lowest-point work.
3.8.8.2: Elimination Phase: Of the works identified in the Selection Phase, the one(s) that appear on the fewest number of nomination ballots will be removed from all nomination ballots for subsequent rounds as if they had never appeared on any ballots.
3.8.8.4: Ties: If two or more works are tied for appearing on the fewest number of nomination ballots, the tied work with the lowest point total will be eliminated. If there is a tie for appearing on the fewest number of nomination ballots as well as for lowest point total, then all members of that tie will be eliminated. Should they deem it necessary to do so in the future, the Hugo administrators are empowered to take further measures to break this type of tie, provided those measures are announced at the beginning of the nomination period for the Hugo Award.
3.8.8.5: If elimination would reduce the number of finalists to fewer than the minimum number, then instead none of the works from that round shall be eliminated, and all remaining works shall appear on the final ballot, extending it if necessary.
3.8.8.6: Subsequent rounds begin by reallocating points as follows: All works eliminated in previous rounds are removed from all nomination ballots and treated as if they had never appeared on any nomination ballot. Members' points are then reallocated equally among their remaining nominated works, if any.
Section 3.9: Notification and Acceptance.
3.9.1 Worldcon Committees shall use reasonable efforts to notify the nominees finalists, or in the case of deceased or incapacitated persons, their heirs, assigns, or legal guardians, in each category prior to the release of such information. Each nominee finalist shall be asked at that time to either accept or decline the nomination. If the nominee any finalist(s) declines the nomination, that nominee finalist(s) shall not appear on the final ballot. In this event, once all finalists have had the opportunity to decline, the nomination system shall be re-run as described in Section 3.8 with the declined nomination(s) removed from the nomination ballots on which they appeared. The eligible finalists from this re-run shall be merged with the remaining potential finalists from the original run. If this merge would result in more than the maximum number of finalists, then the ballot shall be extended to include the finalists from both the original and the re-run of the nomination system. This procedure shall also be used in the event that a finalist is deemed ineligible.
Section 3.11: Tallying of Votes.
3.11.4: The complete numerical vote totals, including all preliminary tallies for first, second, ... places, shall be made public by the Worldcon Committee within ninety (90) days after the Worldcon. During the same period the nomination voting totals shall also be published, including in each category the vote counts for at least the fifteen highest vote-getters and any other candidate receiving a number of votes equal to at least five percent (5%) of the nomination ballots cast in that category, but not including any candidate receiving fewer than five votes. During the same period a record of all rounds of the selection process for each category shall also be published.
Submitted by: Keith "Kilo" Watt, Tammy Coxen, Yoana Yotova, Joshua Kronengold, Chris Battey, CJ Cabourne, Steven Halter, P.J. Evans, David Goldfarb, Seth Gordon, Ginger Tansey, Steve Wright, Catherine Faber, Andy Holloway, Duncan J. Macdonald, Claudia Beach, Derry Earnshaw, Jason Skiles, Soon Lee, David Harmon, Lydy Nickerson
Commentary: "E Pluribus Hugo" - the name of this proposal is also its goal: recognizing the many opinions within fandom as to what works might be worthy of the Hugo. It is to be emphasized that this proposal does not change the nominating process from the perspective of Worldcon members: They still list the works, unranked, they feel are Hugo-worthy (up to the maximum permitted) in any categories they choose, just as they have in the past. In the past, we have counted the number of nominations each work received, and the top five works were put on the final ballot. However, because SF fandom typically nominates a large number of different works, it was easy for an organized slate to make it so that no other works made the final ballot.
Using this system, fandom isn't penalized for nominating a wide variety of works. If you nominate something that ends up not having a chance to make the final ballot, then your remaining choices automatically get more of your support instead of just being wasted. In other words, you can safely nominate anything you feel is Hugo-worthy. If enough people agree with you, it will make the final ballot. If they don't, that's okay - when that work is eliminated, your other choices will have a greater chance of making the final ballot. In this way, by eliminating the least popular candidates each round, fandom slowly converges to a consensus as to which works should be voted on to be the final Hugo winner.
It is also an explicit goal of this proposal not to disenfranchise anyone. Rather, this proposal seeks to ensure that no minority of members - of any sort - can disproportionately dominate an entire category. This system allows the broadest range of works that are popular with fandom-at-large to be considered for the Hugo Award.
FAQ's:
1. Can you explain the system in plain language?
The important thing to remember is that nothing changes in how you nominate. If you think a work is Hugo-worthy, then nominate it. That's all. There's no need to rank your choices at the nomination stage, and there's no reason not to nominate something you think even might be Hugo-worthy. All we are doing at this stage is throwing names into a hat. The final Hugo voting system, which actually chooses the winner, is unchanged. We could, in theory, simply put everyone's nominations on the final ballot, but that would make for a very long ballot indeed. We therefore need to narrow the nomination list down. This system narrows down the list by eliminating the least popular works until only five (under current rules) finalists remain. Here are the basic steps to the elimination process:
a.You have one nomination "point" for each category that will be divided equally among the works you choose to nominate in that category. So, if you nominate two works in a category, each will get half a point; if you nominate three works, each will get one-third of a point, and so on.
b.All the points given to each work from all nomination ballots are added together. The two works that got the least number of points are eligible for elimination. One of these works is the least popular and will be eliminated. (We call this the Selection Phase.)
c.To determine which of these two works is least popular, we compare the total number of nominations they each received (that is, the number of nomination ballots on which each work appears). The work that received the fewest total number of nominations is the least popular and now completely vanishes from the nomination process as though it never existed. (We call this the Elimination Phase.)
d.We start over for the next round and repeat the process, however, if one of your works was eliminated, then you now have fewer works on your nomination ballot. This means that each work gets more total points, since you aren't dividing your point among as many works. For example, if one of your five nominated works was eliminated, your remaining works now get one-fourth of a point each instead of one-fifth of a point. If four of your nominated works are eliminated, your remaining work now gets your full point.
2. E Pluribus Hugo?
The designers felt this name accurately reflects what the Hugo nomination system should be trying to achieve. Fandom is the Many. Members of fandom have a wide range of interests, tastes, and desires in what they appreciate in SF. This is a defining characteristic of fandom, and this system embraces it. Out of all of these many tastes in works, this system allows a single set of nominations to slowly emerge as the most popular candidates for the Hugo Award: "Out of the Many, a Hugo."
3. But surely that's not what the system is formally called?
Okay, sure. Formally, in the context of election theory, this system would be called "single divisible vote with least popular elimination" or SDV-LPE for short. E Pluribus Hugo is both cooler and geekier, as everything is better with a little Latin.
4. How does this system eliminate slate or bloc voting?
It doesn't, exactly, nor should a work be automatically eliminated just because it appears on a slate. On the other hand, any slate which nominates a full set of five works will find that each of its nominations only count 1/5 as much. With "non-slate" nominating, some of your works will be slowly eliminated, so your remaining works get more and more of your support. Since slate works tend to live or die together, they tend to eliminate each other until, in general, only one slate work remains. With a large enough support behind the slate (five times as much), the slate may still sweep a category; however, if that many voters support the slate, they arguably deserve to win, and no fair and unbiased system of nomination will prevent that. The answer in that case is, simply, to increase the general pool of voters. Regardless, with SDV-LPE, slates will never receive a disproportionate share of the final ballot, as occurred in the 2015 Hugos.
5. What if there are multiple slates (slate wars, "parties", etc.)?
As with a single slate, the more works a slate nominates, the less their nominations count for each work. The end result is that even multiple slates are unable to sweep the nominations.
6. What happens if a broadly popular work is nominated by a group of unrelated people?
If it is broadly popular, the system will still select that work for the final ballot.
7. What happens if a broadly popular work also appears on a slate?
Even if it is on a slate, if the work garners support from individuals then the system will select that work for the final ballot. Slates neither help nor hurt any given work.
8. Why re-run the system if someone declines a nomination? Why not just take the work that was eliminated in the next to last round?
We can do that, and in fact have an amendment for that ready if that's what the people decide they want to do. The "re-run, merge, and extend" (RME) system described in the proposed language has only one major difference between it and taking the "6th place" work. Under RME, if a slate work makes the final ballot and that nomination is declined, the declined nomination will tend to be replaced by another work from the slate. Under "6th place", if a slate work makes the final ballot and that nomination is declined, the declined nomination will tend to be replaced by a non-slate work. Either way works, but since our goal is for all sections of fandom to be fairly represented on the final ballot, RME seemed more in line with that philosophy.
9. Isn't it true that any voting system can be gamed (or strategized, etc.)?
Yes, there is a theorem which proves that all voting systems must have inherent flaws. The objective is to choose a system whose flaws are not in an area of concern to the electorate.
10. What are SDV-LPE's flaws?
In rare cases, it is possible for eliminating both members of a tie to change the final ballot slightly from what it would be if the tie were broken so that only one member was eliminated. The change is usually in the least popular of the finalists, and requires the two works in question be very close in popularity. This situation was extremely rare using realistic data (in fact it never occurred in any of our situations with realistic data), so the statistical probability of how ties are handled affecting the results is extremely small. There are a number of additional tie breakers that could be used if the Hugo administrators deemed it necessary; however, simulations that have been run by the designers of this system show that it really shouldn't be required. The proposal language leaves open that option if later Hugo administrators want to add those layers of complexity to the process. SDV-LPE itself works the same regardless.
11. What are SDV-LPE's benefits?
Simply put, it reduces the power of bloc voting without eliminating the chance that works that do appear on slates will make it to the final ballot. Conversely, it makes it very difficult for slates to prevent non-slate works from appearing on the ballot.
12. Couldn't slates just recommend a single work for a candidate, and it will automatically appear on the final ballot?
Yes, if a slate is large enough that is certainly a viable possibility - it's also completely fair. It does not force any other works off of the final ballot, and the final Hugo winner is determined by the same voting process we have always had. Just appearing on the final ballot isn't a guarantee of winning a Hugo. However, if any large section of fandom strongly believes that a work deserves a Hugo nomination, then it should, in fact, be represented on the final ballot.
13. What happens with a large field with no stand-out favorites when a slate votes?
Even in this case, we were unable to find a simulation in which no non-slate works appeared on the final ballot. Slate works did receive a larger proportion of nomination slots than they did otherwise, however, again, this could be considered a fair and valid result. If there was no general favorite, then nominators really had no collective preference.
14. How do the results of this system compare to the results under the current nomination system?
Statistical tests showed that this system and the current system overlap in about 4.5 out 5 candidates. In the absence of slates, it generally gives identical results to the current nomination system.
15. I think we should just increase the number of nomination slots on the final ballot to (for example 6), and decrease the number of slots a voter can vote for to a smaller number (for example, 4). Wouldn't that be simpler and easier?
Unfortunately, this simply means that the largest slate will receive four of the nominations and the next largest will receive the remaining two. It doesn't solve the problem of forcing works off the ballot that had a chance to win the final election. In general, we want fandom to nominate as many works as they feel are Hugo-worthy, since under SDV-LPE there is no strategic reason not to do so. For this reason, most of the designers of this system would prefer that members not be limited to nominating only four works. Keep in mind, however, that SDV-LPE will work with this (or most any other) change as well, so one does not preclude the other.
16. I think we should set up a committee to handle these situations as they occur. The committee would be empowered to add nomination slots or throw out slate-influenced ballots as required.
This could work. The problem is that now you have a small group of people who serve as literal gatekeepers to the Hugo Awards. In spite of the word on the Internet, this has never been the case in the past. Establishing it now means that those groups who believed it existed in the past will now be correct. Ultimately, human judgement is fallible. The fairness of a committee's decisions will forever be subject to opinion. The end result is that the prestige of the Hugo Awards will forever be tarnished.
17. I think we should use [insert other mathematical voting system].
We considered essentially every applicable type of voting system currently in the literature, guided by two experts in the field. It should be kept in mind, however, that the goals and requirements for choosing a set of representatives in a political situation are different from those for choosing a set of Hugo finalists. Some of these systems do, in fact, have positive properties that speak for them. None of them were as simple or as intuitive as SDV-LPE, yet SDV-LPE meets all of the stated goals for a Hugo nomination system.
18. Won't SDV-LPE be complicated to code and implement?
Actually, no. One of our non-experts coded a full simulator for the system in a matter of days. A full web-based app would not be much more difficult to handle.
19. Wasn't this system just designed by Social Justice Warriors to block the Good Stuff?
It is true that much of the discussion for this system occurred on Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden's "Making Light" discussion board, and it is also true that groups such as the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies consider TNH and PNH to be The Enemy, and therefore completely biased and not to be trusted. Other than serving as occasional moderators, TNH and PNH had no real input in the discussions of the system, however. Those of us who worked on the system were very clear that our goal was not to keep the Sad/Rabid Puppies off of the Hugo ballot, and that any system which specifically targets any type of work is inherently wrong and unfair. One of the members of the group is a retired US Naval officer, a combat veteran, a certified Navy marksman, a Christian, and considers Robert Heinlein to be the greatest science fiction author who has ever lived. In short, he is exactly the Puppies' demographic. But any slate, of any sort, be it a Sad Puppy or a Happy Kitten of Social Justice, breaks the Hugo Award because a small percentage of voters can effectively prevent any other work from appearing on the final ballot. This is a major flaw in the Hugo nomination system, and it is a flaw that must be fixed if the integrity of the award is to be maintained. Politics should play no role whatsoever in whether a work is Hugo-worthy or not.