Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
@Tommy,
Because, unlike you, I'm not willing to set myself up as a moral arbiter on the "correctness" or otherwise of someone's decision about whom to vote for. I'm disagreeing with what seems to be an attempt to make the process less democratic by restricting the right to recommend books. That's where we differ.
|
But it is questionable that a slate makes the process more democratic. In my view it makes it less democratic and the results underline that. There are two stages at play: the nomination and the voting for the nominations. Due to the rules of the nomination, a small but concentrated slate can push books into the second stage. The second stage is where most people actually vote and where not an indefinit number of different books compete. Here it shows, that the nomination process failed, because the vast majority of voters dismissed the slate nominated works. It doesn't add to the democratic process, but halts it, if the desired output of the vote should be the books the voters found best that year.
So the question is, what to do with the first stage, the nomination. Either campaigning for different slates - changing the concept of the nomination in the process - or changing the rules, so that slates aren't possible.
The sad thing is, that it is necessary to change the rules. The social contract is broken and that is nothing that could be mended easily. Look at games. Nobody wants to play with "that guy", who always bends the rules and argues over them instead of just playing.