September 15, 2015 at 2:31 am #360785
This year TV Academy has asked all their voters to rank the nominees on their ballot instead of just choosing one favourite. That rule was probably invented to prevent voters from blandly name-checking their friends without even think about it what are the other nominees in the category. And maybe encourage them a little bit to actually watch the submitted tapes to have an opinion about what are they actually voting for. It’s a nice idea on the paper but it could end up like one of the worst things in recent memory.
First of all, this is not Academy Awards where they have only 4 acting categories and 20 nominees and nearly everyone is aware of the performances they were ranking. Movies have a much bigger influence on people’s life, and most of them are being invited to screenings and actually see the movies . Tv is not like that.
Even if we optimistically assume that every voter watch at least one show from every category, they can’t rank every one of them with a full knowledge, even the ones who took their job seriously had to name-check after some point.
So, let’s say I am a voter and started to ranking Out. Supp Actress-Drama category. I only watch Oitnb amongst the nominated shows so Aduba easily takes my first spot, because she is great on the show. I don’t watch the other shows, so I don’t know what to do to fill the rest of my ballot. And the systen wouldn’t allow me to confirm my vote before ranking all of them. Hmm, I see that we also have Baranski here, I actually liked her in Cybill, let’s put her in #2, it won’t matter anyway. Hendricks is a ginger like me, you have my #3 spot, girl! Headey’s face looks similar, I guess she was in that movie that called 300. She was hot. She could be my #4 choice. Literally no idea who the other two are, let’s put them randomly and be done with it. Good. Fingers crossed for Crazy Eyes.
See? How many of them actually cared to rank the rest justly once they’ve ranked their favourites first?
There’s no way that actors with so little name recognition or anyone under 40 years old could win! Because veterans like Baranski, Tomlin, Spacey would always be at least in top 3 on everyone’s ballot!
This is worrying, or maybe not? Does anyone know how the votes will be counted? Will it be like Oscars where in the first round only #1 votes were counted and if no nominee collects enough votes to be selected as winner they would start to count #2 votes. If they would just give everyone on the #1 a 6 point and #2 a 5 point #3 a 4 point and goes on… That would be a real mess! I hope they will use the Oscars system. Any ideas?September 15, 2015 at 6:50 am #360787
Stand under correction (since this was how it was done in the past at the Emmys).
Voters rank the entire nominees in the category, from 1 to 6, from your favorite (best performance) to your least favorite.
No. 1 spot gets 1 point, No. 2 gets 2 points and so on. The nominee with the least amount of points at end of tabulating wins.September 15, 2015 at 7:21 am #360788
This is not a new rule at all, but I have been wondering about how this will come into play with the new voting. I would think that people will almost always rank shows that they watch first, then people that they like from other things, then unknowns from shows that they have never seen. I think that Ben Mendelsohn for example will unfortunately be picking up a lot of last-place votes. This is also a large part of why I think that Janney is so vulnerable. A Mom contender is going to rank lower than someone from Modern Family, Veep and Transparent on a lot of ballots by default. Maybe she has enough name recognition on her own to overcome that like Viola Davis though. She did win SAG twice. Obscure people had a much better shot under the old system because they were ranked based on tapes that were actually watched.September 15, 2015 at 7:24 am #360789
And i agree. The nominee who gets the least amount of 4-6 position rankings can win it in the end. That’s probably how Jim Parsons won it every year. He might not be your favorite performance in the group, but he is consistently the funniest. He probably never gets No. 5 or No. 6 rankings. And that’s probably how Merritt Wever won it as well. But Riley made a very good point about lesser known nominees from shows that arent popular will probably get a lot of lower rankings.
I still don’t believe that all popular shows/actors will win on Sunday. There will be shocks. There will be winners we didn’t anticipate and underestimated.September 15, 2015 at 10:23 am #360790
Ranking the nominated performers on the ballot is not a new rule, but allowing “everyone” to rank the nominated performers on the ballot is a new one. That was my point. I understand the reason behind this popularity rule, they had been getting so many backlash about blue-ribbon panels and how they did not represent the whole branches preferences perfectly, they finally got sick of that and said “Fine! If you know better than this, choose your winners yourselves! It is more easier to do it anyway.” They just accepted their system to be more demogrphical.
But the problem is; keeping both the old preferantial ballot while switching to the popularity vote is so so much wrong on so many levels because of the reasons I’ve stated above. It would have made much more sense if everyone had to pick just one person from every category, or no one had to rank every candidate from every category they wanted to vote for
I can’t even be mad at the Emmy voters if someone like Lily Tomlin ends up winning because it wouldn’t even exactly be their fault. This new system, again, doesn’t allow them to show their actual favourites. Tomlin could win even if no one had ranked her at first. She has worked with so many people.
@thedemonhog You seem like a more knowledgable poster about these facts. Are we definitely sure that the past voting calculation system has also been used this year or are we just assuming that way?
I can’t accept the fact that the only difference from a person on the #1 between the other person on #2 is JUST ONE FUCKING POINT!September 15, 2015 at 12:32 pm #360791
The ranking system has been in place all through the 2000s; not sure about before that. You asked about how votes are counted and the way that it works is all of the rankings are added up and whoever has the lowest score wins (first-place ranking equals one point and so on). So people can totally win off of second-place votes and even zero first-place votes.September 15, 2015 at 4:43 pm #360792
I see, thanks for the answer! The whole thing is just so disgusting. It amazes me that executives of TV Academy have a zero capacity of foreseeing the possible results of the changes they have made.September 15, 2015 at 6:01 pm #360793
I’ve always thought about it this way (as long as this system has been in place). It explains so many repeat winners (anything Modern Family, JLD, Jim Parsons, etc). I think the ranking system kills shows that are not straight up comedy for the comedy categories. I think dramedys are too divisive content wise (I’m thinking laughs per minute or scene) that they get too many last place votes even if it’s a huge buzz show.