I’m not going to try and predict what’s going to happen in the Hugo Awards voting this weekend. I’d like to hope voters judge the nomnations on the quality of the work rather than treating the whole thing as a trial of strength between ideological factions. The only thing we can be sure of is vast numbers of electrons will be spent in discussing the eventual outcome.
But one thing I do hope to see is the E Pluribus Hugo voting system adopted for the nominations at the business meeting. Even then it will in turn need to be ratified at the next WorldCon, which means it won’t come into force until 2017.
Yes, I’ve seen lots of people arguing that the voting system shouldn’t be changed. But most of those arguments boil down to “It’s too complicated and I’m too lazy to try and understand how it works” or “It was proposed on That Site where all those awful people hang out, and therefore must be bad”. Neither of those arguments really hold water.
Whatever its real or imagined flaws, E Pluribus Hugo is better than the alternative. Leaving the voting system unchanged will mean it will devolve into battles between competing slates, meaning a handful of high profile figures with significantly sized internet bully pulpits will act as gatekeepers. Any work that doesn’t have the backing of a Scalzi or a Correia will have a hard time getting nominated.
Using some kind of social sanction to defeat slates would be even worse, and would devolve into bullying nominees into withdrawing their nomination if they had the misfortune to be publicly backed by a bad person. It doesn’t take much imagination to imagine how that would go wrong.
So Worldcon needs to adopt E Pluribus Hugo if the Hugo Awards are to remain relavant.