The Bizarre System Behind Oscar Nominations — and How to Fix It
Oscars season is just starting to peek over the horizon — the voting process begins just after the New Year — but the bitter taste of last year’s edition is still fresh on people’s minds. (See, e.g., Jimmy Kimmel at the Emmys last week.) Ushered along by the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag, the wave of disappointment, condemnation and ridicule at the lack of diversity among Oscar nominees hit a fever pitch in the run-up to last year’s event, culminating in a virtual walk of shame for the svelte statuette through its eponymous four-hour broadcast.
In the months since then, the Academy has taken measures to alter the composition of its voting membership, including by phasing out inactive members and by increasing the dismal 8% rate of minority representation. Reports indicate that the minority number could hit 11% this year, which, while an improvement, still is paltry by any reasonable measure. Also concerning are critics’ questions as to whether it’s even feasible for the Academy to reach any higher.
The question thus arises of what more can be done. Although it’s not the sexiest answer, below I outline a few opportunities for change within the Oscar nominations voting process itself.
In short, the way votes are tabulated in the current nominations process essentially boils down to: one ballot, one nominee. That process can be changed, and it could be improved to allow voters to express a broader range of preferences, with the goal of diluting unconscious bias effects and evening the playing field for less-established nominees (which minorities are more likely to be).
But even if the system is not changed, a fuller understanding of how the nominations process works could still help voting members fill out their ballots in smarter ways that are more likely to be influential in their categories. In either case, the measures I discuss below could be implemented immediately and with potentially dramatic effect.
The Oscar nominations voting process could be improved to allow voters to express a broader range of preferences, with the goal of diluting unconscious bias effects and evening the playing field for less-established nominees (which minorities are more likely to be).
The Oscar Nominations Voting Process, a Primer
Oscar voting occurs in two stages:
1. The Nominations Voting Process, in which all members eligible to vote in a category decide the nominees; and
2. The Final Balloting Process, in which the same members decide which of the nominees is the winner.
Taking the Best Actor category as an example, the Nominations Voting Process involves a ballot on which an eligible member lists up to five names, ranked in order of preference. The way votes are tabulated, in simplified terms, is that only the first choice on the ballot is counted — unless the total number of votes for that actor falls below a certain threshold, in which case only the second choice is counted (and so on).
The net effect is that, although each nominating voter lists five names in order of preference, ultimately that ballot will only count for the nomination of one actor. This system is known in the parlance as a “preferential” voting system, as it counts each ballot’s top viable preference. One ballot, one nominee.
From that perspective, the process essentially asks the voter: Who is the one (viable) actor you think should win? While that seems like the right question for the Final Balloting Process, it’s questionable whether that is the best way to determine a pool of nominees. An alternative system might ask: Who are the five actors who should be nominated?
The current nominations process essentially asks the voter: Who is the actor you think should win? An alternative system might ask: Who are the five actors who should be nominated?
How to Change the Voting Process, and Why
There are a number of alternative voting systems the Academy could consider in this regard. Here are two:
1. Points System: One point is allocated to each actor named on a ballot. The nominees are the five actors with the most aggregate points.
2. Weighted System: Same as the Points System, but actors ranked higher on a ballot receive a greater number of points, on a scale from 1 to 5. Again, the five nominees would be those with the highest aggregate score. (A similar system is used to decide college football’s Heisman Trophy.)
Why change? The bottom line for this proposal is that, when compared with the existing nominations process, these alternatives would allow voters to express expanded preferences — i.e., all five votes on the nominating ballot would count, not just the name at the top. This would operate to dilute unconscious biases on the part of individual voters.
Compared to the current Preferential System, a Points System or Weighted System would allow voters to express expanded preferences — i.e., all five votes on the nominating ballot would count, not just the name at the top, which could dilute unconscious biases of individual voters.
To illustrate, let’s assume — for sake of argument — that the 8% minority voters all marked their Best Actor ballots with the same actor at the top — let’s say it’s Idris Elba — while the 92% white voters included Mr. Elba on some ballots but none in the top spot. (I freely admit this is an extreme scenario; I use it only for illustrative purposes.) Under the current Preferential System, Mr. Elba would have very little chance of earning a nomination, no matter how many white voters listed him somewhere on their ballots. By contrast, under a Points System or a Weighted System, Mr. Elba’s chances would be much stronger because he would have the benefit of those votes that placed him in positions 2–5. (Exactly how strong would depend on how many such votes he received and, under the Weighted System, at what level of priority.)
Would it be feasible to make the change? It’s hard to see why a Points or Weighted System could not be implemented immediately. It would require no change to the ballots used in the voting process, and no change to how members vote; it would require only a change in how votes are tabulated (which, famously, is conducted by an outside accounting firm). In fact, the Academy’s rules appear to make room for a possible change to another system.
What If The Academy Says No?
The Academy is a bureaucracy and, like all bureaucracies, has a vested interest (and lots of inertia) in its own long-held processes and procedures. As such, it likely would resist or outright refuse any of the above proposals if they came to the Academy’s ears.
Even so, a fuller understanding of how Oscar nominations work could help voting members fill out their ballots in more influential ways. Knowing that the current nominations process uses a Preferential System, voting members could ensure consideration of less-established nominees by placing them higher on their ballots — preferably in the very top spot. Voters should know that only the top spot will ensure that a lesser-known nominee will be given full consideration.
Even under the status system, voting members can ensure consideration of less-established nominees by placing them higher on their ballots — preferably in the very top spot. Voters should know that only the top spot will ensure that a lesser-known nominee will be given full consideration.
The S Factor
We’re talking about process. It’s technical and not very sexy.
That’s the general reaction I’ve gotten from Hollywood media when I’ve raised this as a possible story. I can’t disagree, but as long as the underlying reasoning is sound — and no one has refuted it to me yet! — then perhaps this will get to the ears of the Academy at some point.
If you can help in the process, hit Share and send this to that person you know in the business. Or to anyone you like. It can only help.
