Home Forums Television Will the vote splitting at the 2016 Emmys lead to category fraud?

Will the vote splitting at the 2016 Emmys lead to category fraud?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
Created
1 year ago
Last Reply
1 year ago
12
( +1 hidden )
replies
574
views
4
users
5
4
2
  • Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934550

    This year the Emmy’s had many upsets, which is probably due to vote splitting.  Harrington and Dinklage split the votes allowing Mendelson to win. Light and Hoffman split the transparent love, allowing McKinnon to win. Vote splitting was also evident in many writing and directing categories. Will TV shows start only submitting one performer in each category? And if they do, will they try and bend the rules to get more nominations? These are the categories I think will be bent. My guess for Stranger Things is David Haurbor and Winnona Ryder will be submitted into lead, even though they are supporting, and Millie Bobby Brown will be submitted in supporting. For supporting actor, I would assume they would submit Gaten Mazzerato even though I doubt he has a chance unless the voters love the show that much. For Orange is the new black, I am also assuming major shifts. Since Samira Wiley was the focus of season 4, could she be submitted into lead. Personally, I would prefer to see Danielle Brooks in over Uzo Aduba for Orange is The New Black. For transparent, I genuinely thought Judith Light was amazing this season, and I would totally understand her being submitted as the lead, she was the main character this season. She was so good that if the voters saw it she could win. I would also not be shocked if Mr.Robot put Carlie Chaikin in lead so the shows many other actresses had a chance in supporting. I know many people would be upset with these shifts, but I think they are possible because the shows will want as many nominations as possible, but won’t want vote splitting. Who else thinks the vote splitting will cause category shifting this year?

    Reply
    AayaanUpadhyaya
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934610

    Was vote splitting really that big of a thing? I mean no one really deserved to win Drama Supporting Actor, Louie Anderson WAS the best thing in his category and was deserving of the win (he was so much better than Tony Hale AND Matt Walsh), Master of None was the best written comedy series of the last year (The episode reminded me of those Louie episodes that won here), and Transparent was the best directed comedy series last year (Jill Soloway was the returning champion as well).

    Then we had Marcia Marcia Marcia, Sterling K Brown, Courtney B Vance, Tina Fey & Amy Poehler and Battle of the Bastards overcoming vote splitting (all of which deserved to win).

    The only two categories I could see vote splitting being a factor in were Movie/Mini-series directing (no way The Night Manager wins over Fargo) and Comedy Supporting Actress (Light and Hoffman definitely split the vote). But in the later case, McKinnon had all the momentum (She dethroned Alison Janney) so maybe even this category was not decided by vote split.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934664

    ^So in summary; when you liked the outcome vote-splitting didn’t matter and when you disagreed with the winner vote-splitting was to blame? Makes no sense to assume that Veep didn’t split its support in Writing, Directing, Sup. Actor but Transparent did in Sup. Actress.

    If voters thought Transparent was the best directed comedy of the year why didn’t it get a second nomination in the same category(they submitted two) while two other shows did?

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934666

    Anyway, there’s nothing can be done about vote splitting in non-acting categories unless the whole team decides to co-operate and only submit one director/writer/editor in one year and the other one the next and so on; so that everyone would have a fair chance of winning. In acting categories, they can seperate the actors between lead/sup/guest if it is possible.

    The affects of vote-splitting will always be minimized if the title that it was competing for is too baity/striking like Battle of the Bastards or Marcia… or that if its biggest opponents also have multiple things nominated in same category(like Editing or Supp.Actor for Fargo against OJ)

    At this point everyone in the industry knows what Modern Family, House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Homeland is about, and those will always get rubberstamp-familiarity votes in every category they are nominated until they end or get snubbed. That won’t be the case in miniseries/movies, because what the hell is All the Way, Confirmation, Roots if you weren’t among few voters who watched and voted for it. The chances of there being more than 2-3 contenders every year that whole industry watch is very slim. This year they watched Fargo and OJ. Last year it was only Olive Kitteridge. The next year it will be The Night Of and maybe something else, and they’ll sweep everything. Vote splitting won’t matter much in that genre.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AayaanUpadhyaya
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934701

    ^So in summary; when you liked the outcome vote-splitting didn’t matter and when you disagreed with the winner vote-splitting was to blame? Makes no sense to assume that Veep didn’t split its support in Writing, Directing, Sup. Actor but Transparent did in Sup. Actress.

    If voters thought Transparent was the best directed comedy of the year why didn’t it get a second nomination in the same category(they submitted two) while two other shows did?

    I don’t know about you, but I saw Transparent, Veep, Master of None AND Baskets last year. I was predicting both Solloway and Anderson because they simply were the best in their categories and no, Hale and Walsh did not deserve to win that award over Anderson so stop crediting his win to vote-split. Likewise, Transparent’s direction blows Veep out of the competition so stop crediting that win to a vote-split as well (especially since Solloway won this category in a preferential ballot as well to justify the Director’s branch love for her). And as far as missing out on 2 nominations, in a year where Peter Scolari can win even after not being nominated in the first round, I won’t be holding any important to the nominations being a factor in reflecting the academy’s love for a show or performer. And again, in my opinion, Master of None was a better written show so I can totally see the writers wanting to reward that show (although I wanted Veep to win so your claim is invalid)

    And maybe I didn’t phrase this right, but I don’t think a vote split between Hoffman and Light decided the winner as Mckinnon was pretty far ahead in that category. If she could beat Janney, she would easily have beaten the transparent actresses (even if there was just one of them). Also I actually wanted Light to win, but didn’t think she lost because of a vote split so once again your claim is invalid.

    I think Maggie Smith and Night Manager winning in directing are examples of vote splitting. I can also see David and Morgan splitting the vote. I don’t deny vote splitting as a factor, but I think we really need to look at all the categories independently and not make a blanket assumption thinking every time multiple co-stars are nominated, they will lose.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934716

    I don’t deny vote splitting as a factor, but I think we really need to look at all the categories independently and not make a blanket assumption thinking every time multiple co-stars are nominated, they will lose.

    I can agree with this in ”acting” categories. A voter can vote for 10 actors from House of Cards and can still pick Maslany over Wright if he feels that the former’s role is harder to pull off. They usually vote for actors from shows they watch in the nomination round, and then it becomes solely about actor itself in the second round. Therefore the wins for the likes of Louie Anderson and Peter Scolari or even Rami Malek.(after snubbing Slater)

    Solloway’s directing blows Veep’s out of water.

    According to who? To you and me? Sure. I think it is one of the best directed shows on the air right now. But non-acting categories do not work the way I wrote above, there are no pictures on the ballot only the show’s title. A vote for Louie Anderson might not equate to a vote for ”Baskets” but a writer voting for Catastrophe most likely means he likes the show enough. If the branch didn’t feel passionate about Veep this year they wouldn’t have voted for its 3 directors (which rarely happens and that was all they submitted anyway) at the same time after constantly snubbing the show in its 3 years.

    You can easily say that ”Vote-splitting led to more deserving winners from underdogs and also was responsible for wealth being spread among many shows ” and no one would question your point of view, but to claim that they knew Transparent had an amazing direction yet still opted to not vote for more of it when they had the chance is troubling. Master of None submitted only one entry in writing, so maybe that one was/would have been a clear winner anyway.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934724

    I am hesitant ever to credit wins to being “because they simply were the best” because all of this is subjective and because the Emmys differ from us on consensus choices, like The Americans versus Game of Thrones.

    Before the ceremony, I definitely would have said that vote-splitting was to blame for the upsets, but I am less confident now. You can see how vote-splitting probably influenced most of these, but the new system sure seemed to award the nominee with the “most” in several categories:

    Comedy Directing: Transparent
    Comedy Editing: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
    Comedy Production Design: Transparent
    Comedy Sound: Mozart in the Jungle
    Limited Directing: The Night Manager
    Variety Directing: Inside Amy Schumer

    I doubt that any of those would have won under preferential. In the acting categories, I think that we found that it is very hard to ride a wave of support for your show. I think that the difference with acting and non-acting is that each branch only has the opportunity to vote for their favourite show once (outside of series) in non-acting, but one show may be nominated in several acting categories.

    Given how long it took Matt Walsh and Kit Harington to get nominated and how many trophies Tony Hale and Peter Dinklage racked up in the meantime, I do not think that vote-splitting was insurmountable in those races. But neither Hale or Dinklage have much passion; they are very much performances (this season anyway) that could only win if they were swept up by their series. What I took away about the new system from the Emmys this year is that if you had enough votes to get the nomination, you have enough visibility to win under a plurality vote.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934731

    And… we have to do better things with our time? Seriously my head is burning from all those crazy theories I’ve written and read about this system! But I think I’ve managed to establish a formula in my head.

    What I took away about the new system from the Emmys this year is that if you had enough votes to get the nomination, you have enough visibility to win under a plurality vote.

    This is a good point.  Their way of voting is obviously the reason for this. I guess 195 one place votes was enough for an actor to get nominated for an Oscar and that branch had 1100 members. Assuming the Emmys have double more or so voters and there being no preferential ballot; in some very competitive categories one may have to be in near 500 voters’ ballots to get nominated. Which is obviously a huge number and enough to push one to the finish line in the second round.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934739

    As for the question posed in the original post, I predict that submissions are more (as opposed to less) strategic next year than this year, but also that they will not be as strategic as I have seen people suggest in this forum. As I have said, Game of Thrones went home from the Emmys before this year with zero acting wins more often than not, so them getting shut out this year must look par for the course to them.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AayaanUpadhyaya
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934802

    I don’t deny vote splitting as a factor, but I think we really need to look at all the categories independently and not make a blanket assumption thinking every time multiple co-stars are nominated, they will lose.

    I can agree with this in ”acting” categories. A voter can vote for 10 actors from House of Cards and can still pick Maslany over Wright if he feels that the former’s role is harder to pull off. They usually vote for actors from shows they watch in the nomination round, and then it becomes solely about actor itself in the second round. Therefore the wins for the likes of Louie Anderson and Peter Scolari or even Rami Malek.(after snubbing Slater)

    Solloway’s directing blows Veep’s out of water.

    According to who? To you and me? Sure. I think it is one of the best directed shows on the air right now. But non-acting categories do not work the way I wrote above, there are no pictures on the ballot only the show’s title. A vote for Louie Anderson might not equate to a vote for ”Baskets” but a writer voting for Catastrophe most likely means he likes the show enough. If the branch didn’t feel passionate about Veep this year they wouldn’t have voted for its 3 directors (which rarely happens and that was all they submitted anyway) at the same time after constantly snubbing the show in its 3 years.

    You can easily say that ”Vote-splitting led to more deserving winners from underdogs and also was responsible for wealth being spread among many shows ” and no one would question your point of view, but to claim that they knew Transparent had an amazing direction yet still opted to not vote for more of it when they had the chance is troubling. Master of None submitted only one entry in writing, so maybe that one was/would have been a clear winner anyway.

    I agree with this.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AayaanUpadhyaya
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934804

    I think shows should continue submitting as many performers they want to per category. Granted the risk of vote splitting is there, but they really shouldn’t limit themselves in nominations just because it MAY reduce their chance at a win.

    ReplyCopy URL
    jacob121
    Participant
    Joined:
    Mar 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201934884

    Even under the old system it was demonstrably more advantageous for the majority of shows to only submit one entry below the line for directing/writing (which was proven over and over again) and yet most shows ignored this or didn’t even bother to learn about it in the first place. I am not so sure that shows are going to take away any sort of revised strategy from this ceremony when they ignored such an easy play in the past – particularly because it seemingly disproportionately affects the most successful Emmy shows (i.e. Veep in Directing/Writing, GOT in Supporting Actress) which are the least likely to change their strategies in the wake of very successful Emmy runs.

    That said, count me as a fan of the new system (although I really miss the days of the Top 10 lists).

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201935785

    ^Admittedly, it’s easier for me to say from outside that they(writers/directors) should be a team player and withdraw their name for someone else but this is TV world and there is no guarantee that their shows will be as hyped as they are now in the next cycle and have the right to use that buzz in their favor while they can. They should at least be logical enough to not submit more than what the Emmys have space for though, like BCSaul.

    I was in an overjoyed mood for some of the things they chose in the past few days but now looking back the results with an open mind I think that the affect of passion votes are somewhat overblown. The only one we could % 100 say was a result of passion vote is Maslany since she was an unknown foreigner from a show that was not a factor in any other categories. With Louie Anderson, it comes down to which way do you prefer to look at but since both Key and Burgess were in more visible shows giving similarly flashy performances I’m inclined to think that his name was a bigger factor in his win than his performance. McKinnon got the votes of all people that have hosted the SNL along with her in the past five years and the previous SNL alumns . Neither JLD, Tambor nor any Series winners can be considered passion picks even if they were the “bests”. Directors branch has always been weirdly welcoming to female directors so Suzanne Bier had the upper hand over Fargo there. Guest categories were clear name checks. And then there is the dark side of the coin that no one wants to talk about: GoT in Writing and Smith. No matter how predictable both of those wins came as, both were the least inspiring choices in their categories and won over typical passion choices like Mr.Robot/The Americans/Unreal. Clearly the fans of both shows voted for just the name and couldn’t care less about checking what’s else on the ballot. And those 9 Creative Arts win for GoT? When will it end? People v OJ in Hairstyling?

    Anyway this is Emmys, and we will continue to nitpick over which system they bring. And this one still looks like it is the most democratic and has the potential to be the most consistent one. I just hope voters will continue to improve themselves(At least this system allows that since we know we won’t always be at the mercy of 90 voters who always falls for the same things) think outside the box and vote for newer and weirder things; no matter how hippy it sounds.

    I Given how long it took Matt Walsh and Kit Harington to get nominated and how many trophies Tony Hale and Peter Dinklage racked up in the meantime, I do not think that vote-splitting was insurmountable in those races. But But neither Hale or Dinklage have much passion; they are very much performances (this season anyway) that could only win if they were swept up by their series.

    People can surge later in the show’s run and still get in ahead of a perennial nominee/winner from the same show. Like Jared Harris. And one could argue that Esposito and Banks had more passion at the one time they were nommed than Paul.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
Reply To: Will the vote splitting at the 2016 Emmys lead to category fraud?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Luca Gi... - Oct 21, 2017
Television
Tom O'Neil - Oct 20, 2017
Television