Oscars' New Voting System: Could It Work for Gordon Brown?

For Oscar lovers like me, the usual nail-biting anticipation that accompanies the annual Academy Awards is all the greater this year. Not only are there more films up in the category of Best Picture, but the rules by which that movie is selected have also changed.

In a curious case of life imitating art, the British government is also looking at reforming its electoral system along similar lines.

In both cases, the big question on everyone's mind is this: Who benefits?

Let's take these reforms in turn. Last June, the Academy announced that for the top prize at the Oscars -- Best Picture -- the number of nominees would be expanded to 10, from five. The idea behind the change was partly to drum up better ratings for the broadcast. But it was also intended to give pride of place to the sorts of commercial movies – comedies, animated films, blockbusters – that have played second fiddle to more serious, downbeat, artsy films that have dominated the awards in recent years.

And it worked. The nominees for best picture this year ran the gamut from the sci-fi parable "District 9" to the animated family favorite "Up" and everything in between.

As an unabashed Oscar fanatic, I'm already on the record saying that I, for one, am saddened by the change. I love the sort of small, iconoclastic indie films that typically dominate Best Picture nominations. I fear that if we dilute their influence at the Oscars, we will only further dilute their influence at the cinemas, which is already waning. And that's a real loss.

An article in The Guardian by cultural critic Joe Queenan explains why. A recent survey of the top-20-grossing films ever reveals that -- with few ­exceptions -- the films that have raked in the most cash at the box office in the entire history of motion pictures were all made in the past decade. They include obvious films such as "Avatar" and "Titanic" but also "Shrek 2" and "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs."

Forget classics like "The Graduate" and "Gone With The Wind" making the cut. Even films like "Jaws" and the original "Star Wars" -- both of which revolutionized the special-effects genre -- aren't there. As Queenan points out, what the vast majority of these films have in common is that they aren't made for grown-ups. As he puts it: "In place of some of the slightly more adult-oriented classics of the past, the list is now filled to overflowing with films for teenagers, small children, and people who don't want to grow up ('The Lord of the Rings,' 'Avatar')."

Some won't find much to bemoan in the death of films for grown-ups. But if, like me, you like your films like you like your eggs -- sunny side down -- this trend is a bummer (to coin a grown-up phrase.)

In theory, the relative dilution of indie films in the Best Picture category should be offset by the new voting rules being used to select that title this year. In the past (since 1946 to be precise), the Best Picture was chosen according to a simple majoritarian, first-past-the post rule: The film with the greatest number of votes won. (Even though, with five nominees, that meant that you could technically win with only just over 20 percent of the vote.) Under the new system of 10 nominees, however, a small plurality of votes (as little as 11 percent), could determine the winner, which just doesn't seem fair.

Which brings us to reform No. 2. Under the new voting system, the Academy will now revert to using something called the Single Transferable Vote (STV) -- (sometimes called Instant Run-off or Alternative Voting) -- a preferential system that enables votes to be transferred from one film to another. (It's actually the system that's been used to determine the Best Picture nominees at the Academy for quite some time.)

Here's how it works: Instead of choosing a single winner, Academy members are asked to rank the 10 titles on their ballot form from 1 to 10. Their ballots are then sorted into 10 piles, based on which films they have placed first. If no movie wins more than 50 percent of the vote -- a statistical unlikelihood -- the film with the fewest first-choice votes will be knocked out of contention. Its ballots are then redistributed among the remaining candidates, based on which movies their "owners" have ranked in second place. If there is still no movie with a 51 percent majority, the procedure will be repeated with the movie ranked ninth. Then eighth. Then seventh. (Check out a handy example at The BBC.)

The conventional wisdom -- espoused by none other than the likes of Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker -- is that the new system should favor a small film like "The Hurt Locker" over a blockbuster like "Avatar." Here's why. Both films have been very well received critically, and are tied for most Oscar nominations this year. But whereas far more people have actually seen "Avatar," some of them absolutely love it, while some positively hate it. So some will number it first on their list, while others will put it dead last, either because they dislike its director -- James Cameron -- or they dislike one of the film's main political messages. In contrast, while far fewer people have seen "The Hurt Locker," most people who have seen it both like and admire it. It will likely be the second or third preference of voters whose first choice is one of the other "small" films that have been nominated (like, say, "An Education" or "A Single Man.")

In short, as Hertzberg puts it, the STV voting system favors consensus in preferences rather than intensity of preferences. (Which -- IMHO -- is a polite way of saying that it's also a more European voting system than the typically American, winner-take-all version that was in place previously.)

But whether this change does, in fact, bode well for indie films isn't entirely clear. For starters, "The Hurt Locker" and other, smaller films will do well in this new system only if -- in addition to getting a lot of second- and third-place votes -- they garner a significant number of first-place votes. Otherwise, they'll quickly get eliminated. Second, it's also possible that showing up to vote for your favorite candidate may create a worse outcome than not showing up at all. For example, your vote could change the order in which candidates are eliminated, and the next-in-line candidate on the ballot for the newly eliminated film may be a film you loathe. Finally, for reasons that you'll just have to trust me on but which are illustrated here -- an alternative that is a winner can become a loser because some voters ranked it more highly.

In short, we have no idea how things are going to sort themselves out on Sunday, but a lot will depend on how seriously Academy voters take the admonition to rank their preferences (instead of just writing down their top choice and leaving it there) as well as how they rank choices 2 through 9.

But just in case you think this is all -- ahem -- academic, it isn't. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is talking quite seriously about implementing alternative voting in the U.K., possibly even before the general election this spring.

According to The Guardian, Labour strategists hope that implementing an STV system in the UK may encourage anti-Tory tactical voting in the general election, and also help form a platform for a Liberal Democrats-Labor coalition in the event of a hung Parliament (which looks increasingly likely). But academic Lewis Baston has analyzed how the alternative vote system would redistribute votes, and he is not convinced the Labour Party would see many gains. According to Baston, Labour may pick up more Liberal Democrat second preferences, but the Tories are likely to get more second preferences from other parties.

In short -- and as with the Academy Awards -- it's anyone's guess how all this will play out on the ground.

But for the record, my money's on both Camerons (James, for Avatar and David, for the Tories) by a nose.

Follow Delia on Twitter.