Hugos
Jeff VanderMeer • September 3rd, 2007 @ 9:45 am • Uncategorized
Congrats to all of the winners, and more coverage soon (I’m just back from Bumbershoot)!
But one thing you gotta notice looking at the break-down of voting: this thing seems to be dying. I mean, the voting is anemic. Growing up, I always thought thousands of people voted on the Hugo. It’s troublesome. I mean, what does it mean to win a Hugo now as opposed to 30-40 years ago? That would be my basic question. My other question would be: who is voting? I’d love to see them post a list of the names of the voters.
Jeff
September 3, 2007 at 11:57 am
Well, a secret ballot is a secret ballot, but you can see a list of the *eligible* voters by checking the membership list of the Worldcon in question.
Probably the big difference between now and 30 years ago is that a much smaller percentage of Worldcon attendees actually vote. But that is because attendance has risen. In 1977 the attendance of Worldcon was 3,240. In 1967 it was 1,500 (data). These days it is more usually around 5,000 when in the US or Europe. Hugo voting numbers have been more static over that period, though they have been going up and down. The numbers this year are quite low, but they are relatively large given the smaller attendance (somewhere over 3000, I think) (data).
But most people involved in the Hugos would love to see more people voting. If you have any suggestions, please leave them here.
September 3, 2007 at 12:25 pm
[...] Jeff Vandermeer thinks that the voting is anemic [...]
September 3, 2007 at 1:53 pm
A secret ballot is a secret ballot, but if they don’t say who voted for what… maybe if it was opt-in?
September 3, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I’d be happy with that, David. Everyone knows I vote anyway. I’m not sure what it would do to voting numbers though. I noticed with the Emerald City recommendation lists that a lot of people who I knew were pushing certain works privately would not have their name put to that work publicly, which is why the SFAW list does not have names attached. Also far more people are prepared to click a button to vote in an online poll than will leave a comment in a web site discussion. Even an opt-in would make people feel under pressure. I think a secret ballot is actually good for getting people to vote.
September 3, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Oh, I agree re the secret ballot. But with that small a number, I dunno, it seems like transparency might actually be preferable.
It is odd, though, because the actual mystique around the Hugos seems quite healthy. It’s just the voting itself that’s rather low.
Anyway, I’ve just posted on the event itself rather than my question.
Jeff
September 3, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Much panic about nothing, in my opinion. The reason there were so few voters this year was there were so few primarily English speaking members this year. Also, how many people are willing to spend FORTY DOLLARS for just the opportunity to nominate or vote for Hugos and maybe a progress report or two? At that prohibitive cost, it’s no wonder there are so few voters.
September 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm
There weren’t that many voters last year or the year before that. IMO.
Jeff
September 3, 2007 at 7:24 pm
$40 is what …. maybe 2 new hardcovers? 5 or 6 new paperbacls?
September 3, 2007 at 8:29 pm
But wouldn’t you rather have those books than the right to vote?
September 4, 2007 at 1:56 am
Depends on the books.
September 4, 2007 at 2:00 am
I think if they did publish the names of the voters (even just of the voters who were willing to be named), it’d be bound to raise the numbers, if only because some people would turn it into a competition. Who knows what it would do to the actual results, but they’re fairly random anyway, so I don’t imagine it could hurt.
If they really wanted to raise the numbers, they should have on-the-spot voting at the convention. Pick up your badge, pick up a ballot. But it would take a pretty high level of organization to actually tally the results in time.