|
I'll admit when Hugo "slates" started the intarwebs a-buzzing, I thought more nominators (lowering the price--maybe even one low price could buy years of nominating/voting rights) would alleviate the problem. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think thousands of honest--these are my favorites--votes will be much of a stumbling block for a determined bloc like the Puppies. In all likelihood, the additional numbers will probably increase the sheer number of books being nominated; making it harder for any of them to gain any traction "organically," and making it no more difficult whatsoever for an organized group to push their slate.
In short: I believe diluting the organic nominations (less total votes each for more total titles) will actually make it easier for a bloc to get the number of votes necessary for their slate to sweep whole categories.
In my opinion, the only way to effectively neutralize an organized bloc of voters is with another organized bloc of voters. Which is why my advice would be to give the Hugos/Worldcon to the Puppies and start a new award. With the two year process to get a rule-change through, they'll never "fix" the problem that way. The Hugos have ALWAYS been there for the taking (via their own stagnant rules); and now they got took. Game over. It's meaningless/mediocre titles or meaningless "No Award"s from now on. Time to cut bait.
|