Since Alison asked: two answers on counting the Hugos - EPH and Best Dramatic Presentation

[nwhyte]

The latest installment of the Octothorpe podcast has a couple of points on counting Hugo nominations raised by Alison Scott, which I'd like to address here

Comments

[ninebelow]

But this was equally true of the old tallying system.

Is it equally true? It was certainly possible under the old system but surely it is significantly increased under a system that reduces voting power based on number of nominations. I would quite frequently nominate nothing that made the shortlist. Under the old system, everything would have been counted as 1. Under the new system, everything would have been counted as 0.2. So, if I only nominated one thing, it would effectively be a 5x multipler on that nomination. In reducing the ability of a group of people to get a whole slate, EHP actually increases the ability of a group of people to get a single nomination on the ballot, provided that is all they care about.

[nwhyte]

Is it equally true?
Oops, I didn't mean "equally" literally here; I was making the point that Alison's precise criticism, that if you vote for A, voting for B will harm A's chances, is true of both systems. "Also" would have been a better word, but I'd used it too much in this piece already.

However, I've done a little calculating. I think it is fair to say that the chances of your first nomination in a particular category are harmed more by your second under EPH than under the old system. The relative impact between them is still a gain of one vote for your second nomination, but of course your first nomination slips back relative to everything else as well.

On the other hand, the impact of your third, fourth and fifth nominations on your first two (and on each other) is definitely less under EPH than under the old system. So if you're nominating more than one in a category, you may as well fill all five of your slots if you know enough about the potential nominees.I would quite frequently nominate nothing that made the shortlist.

[ninebelow]

That is really helpful, thank you. As ever when I discuss EPH I start by thinking I understand it and then realise I don't. Which, to me, is not a point in its favour!

But my feeling over the last five years of experience is that lowering the barrier to an enthusiastic group getting their first choice onto the ballot, while at the same time making it more difficult for such a group to dominate entire categories, turn out to both be wins for the process as a whole.

Very interesting. It still doesn't sit well with me that some people (such as Cho and Harris this year) lose out on their shortlisted position. I also think it is notable that the person who benefited from the first choice bump (Weisskopf) declined their nomination.

[nwhyte]

It still doesn't sit well with me that some people (such as Cho and Harris this year) lose out on their shortlisted position.
The first year we did it, which was also my first year as administrator, Patrick Nielsen Hayden lost out to Vox Day in Best Editor Long Form, and Camestros Felapton to a slated Fan Writer. OTOH this year Octothorpe could have made it to the ballot with two more votes under EPH, and would have been far adrift under the old rules.I also think it is notable that the person who benefited from the first choice bump (Weisskopf) declined their nomination.
Yep. Her voters had their say; and then she had hers.

TBH I personally would not defend the indefinite retention of EPH. The problem it was instituted to deal with has largely gone away.

[andrewducker]

That feels a bit to me like saying "The fox hasn't gotten into the henhouse recently, we can take the door off of it." I don't get the impression that the culture wars have gone anywhere, and removing protections against slate attacks seems like something which would then plausible lead people to once again use them.

[pwilkinson]

I don't think EPH is perfect (indeed, I don't think that there is any voting system that is perfect under all circumstances) and, unless and until I find the time to examine its operation in practice (but we do, after all, now have five years of Hugo nomination data to examine), I don't even want to try defending it as the best - or even least bad - available system for Hugo nominations.

However, even before I do such an examination, I expect that I will most likely decide that it is fairer, at least on balance, than the previous effectively multi-position FPTP nomination system, on grounds of diversity - it gives a substantial minority of nominators with sufficiently different tastes or experience from the majority an opportunity to present at least one contrasting finalist for the consideration of Hugo voters.