By Lynnell Mickelsen
On Sunday night, in addition to sweeping the Oscars with six Academy Awards, "The Hurt Locker" quietly won yet another distinction: It was the first film to win "Best Picture" as the result of ranked choice voting.
Yeah, I know. This little detail kind of got lost in all the celebrity gown coverage. But still, Sunday's awards marked the prime time Oscar debut of a voting system whose time may have come.
The Academy switched to ranked choice voting, or RCV, for Best Picture for the same reason most cities and groups use it: It's the fairest way to pick a winner when more than two choices are on the ballot.
This year, 10 films were up for Best Picture. So if Academy members had been able to pick only one, it would have been technically possible for a movie to win with only 11 percent of the vote. Put another way, a film that 89 percent of the voters did not pick could have won Best Picture, a scenario the Academy was determined to avoid.
A "spoiler" winning Best Picture could tick off movie fans, undermine the Oscar's credibility and dent its ability to rake in cash. (Analysts say winning Best Picture can typically add $20 million to $40 million to a film's box office revenues).
So the Academy switched to ranked choice voting, a century-old system used for local elections in Minneapolis, San Francisco, London, Ireland and Australia, and coming soon to St. Paul, Memphis and Springfield, Ill. Duluth is considering it. Robert's Rules of Order recommends it. In short, RCV is hardly some new, whackadoodle idea.
Critics always bewail how complicated RCV is, in terms of both voting and counting. But the math-phobic Hollywood crowd apparently handled it, and PriceWaterhouseCooper accountants seemed unruffled as always. Here's how they say it worked:
The 6,000 or so voting members of the Academy received ballots with 10 films listed and ranked their favorites from 1 to 10. Or, if they didn't feel that ambitious, from 1 to 5 or 1 to 3. The ballots ultimately ended up in the famed windowless, secret room where the accountants made 10 piles, one for each film. In each pile, they put all the ballots that ranked that film No. 1. The smallest pile was eliminated and all the #2 choices from those ballots were redistributed to the remaining films.
This process allowed people to freely vote for the film they were most passionate about. They didn't have to worry about "wasting" "their vote on, say, "A Serious Man" and thus giving Best Picture to, say, "Avatar," the big sci-fi blockbuster that Hollywood people either love or hate.
The process kept going for however many rounds it took for "The Hurt Locker" to come up with 51 percent or more of the ballots. (We don't know the actual numbers because the Academy always treats the actual tallies -- whether it's RCV or the old way -- like some nuclear secret and never releases them.) And then, ta da! We had a winner. And not just any old winner. We had a film that was truly the top choice or a top choice of the majority of voters.
Whether that's a good thing depends on how you feel about "The Hurt Locker" ... or consensus rule in general. Ranked choice voting favors the movie -- or ideology or candidate -- that has majority approval. So how people feel about RCV usually depends on whether they believe their movie -- or ideology or candidate -- could eventually win 51 percent or more of the vote.
Here in Minnesota, the DFL, Independence, Libertarian and Green Parties all support RCV, while our current Republicans mostly oppose it. Each group can list noble reasons pro and con. But the bottom line is that no political party supports a voting system under which it can't win. So the Republican opposition could be seen as a lack of confidence about whether 51 percent or more of Minnesotans share their ideology.
Which leads to some deeper questions: Does majority rule really matter? Is it necessary for a healthy democracy or government? Does consensus usually make for better decisions?
In the case of this year's Best Picture, the answer probably depends on whether you liked "The Hurt Locker." In the case of Minnesota, where the governor's race has been thrice won with less than 50 percent of the vote, the answer probably depends on whether you think Minnesota is better off after one term of Jesse Ventura followed by two terms of Tim Pawlenty. "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time," wrote E.B. White. Ranked choice voting is based on the same suspicion. I'd love to see Minnesota follow the Oscars' lead and try it statewide.
----
Lynnell Mickelsen is a Minneapolis writer.
Removal of the spoiler effect in politics is achieved thru ranked-choice voting, and eliminates a huge barrier to third parties. Given the gridlock we seem to see with only Democrats and Republicans in Washington (and in many states), alternative choices of parties are welcome, and should be encouraged. In many cases RCV also eliminates a second trip to the polls for a (usually low-turnout) runoff--this saves money and voter time.
IRV will help elections a lot, and greatly reduce the spoiler effect. I remember how Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes in Florida to help Bush win the 2000 election by carrying Florida. Peter Gaposchkin
Less well known is the fact that the Academy also uses ranked choice voting to pick the nominees. This is the way the at large seats on the Park Board and Board of Estimate and Taxation are filled in Minneapolis. For each award, the panel of five nominees (ten in the case of best picture) represents the stylistic and critical opinions of the whole Academy, not just a dominant faction.
John E. Palmer is incorrect: RCV does *not*
"remove the spoiler effect." Indeed, the Burlington VT 2009 election contained a spoiler, seehttp://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html
and for some simple artificial elections demonstrating the point, see e.g.
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
If you truly want to eliminate spoiler effect, suggest approval voting or range voting.
See
http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html
http://rangevoting.org/
Approval and range would have elected Gore in Florida 2000.
Regarding Bob Richard's comment, for an example of how multiwinner RCV (the method used to pick the nominees) can screw up rather royally, consider
http://www.rangevoting.org/PRcond.html
Warren Smith suggests that the "spoiler" in Burlington was the candidate with the most first choice rankings who barely lost in the final instant runoff.
In other words Al Gore might have "spoiled" Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. That's a stretch!
Range and approval voting would not eliminate spoilers. They both have one critical flaw. If a voter votes for any candidate other than their first choice they hurt the chances of their first choice winning. So range and approval voting would rapidly deteriorate to the First Past the Post system since any voter who understands the voting system would not vote for anyone other than their first choice.
Range voters and approval voters make a quick sleight of hand changing the objective of electing a candidate that has the highest voter rankings. Instead, they switch to a Condorcet system electing the candidate with the most votes for any preference. If one always wants a middle of the road candidate and never wants a candidate on the left or right, then the Range and approval voting work OK as long as the voters honestly vote for all candidates. If the voter figures out that any vote for someone other than their first choice will help cause their first choice to lose, they will vote for only one candidate which puts us right back to the current system.
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.