Thanks to Craig over at LiC for the tip-off that first, Steve Pond (Oscar guy who wrote for The Envelope – often has the inside scoop on the goings on within the Academy, and almost always pro-Academy, in my opinion, not that there’s anything wrong with that) has written that there will be a change in Oscar’s final vote for Best Pic — it all makes my girly head spin but why don’t you give it a shot:
Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference — and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.
As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.
It sounds crazy, but there‚Äôs good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).
Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.
Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter‚Äôs ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.
But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. ¬†Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.
If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven‚Ä¶
Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent. The process is designed to discern a true consensus and uncover, in Davis‚Äô words, ‚Äúthe picture that has the most support from the entire membership.‚Äù But to show that broad support, in most years the best picture winner will need to not only be ranked number one on lots of ballots, but also to be picked number two, three and four.
The rule has the potential to rewrite the strategic rules for Oscar campaigning. In the past, studios and consultants simply fought tooth and nail for those number one votes — which were, of course, the only votes Academy members could cast. Now it‚Äôll be absolutely crucial to make sure your film is also in the top five on as many ballots as possible.
Maybe that‚Äôll lead to more ads from broad-appeal films that might otherwise have seemed to be out of the running. Or maybe it‚Äôll lead to more negative campaigning: after all, a good chunk of the voters don‚Äôt have to like your film the most, as long as you give them reasons to like it better than most of the other contenders.
Academy voters, by the way, don‚Äôt know about this yet. ‚ÄúI know people have been wondering about it, and even worrying about it,‚Äù says Davis. ‚ÄúAt some point we‚Äôll do a mailing, probably in the fall membership quarterly, to make it clear what‚Äôs coming up.‚Äù
Are they making it more complicated or less complicated. I can’t tell. So we’ll be looking for the most popular film overall. Hm. In that way, it’s definitely possible that we may see more splitting between director and picture wins – and it might break up a sweep. Then again, even under these rules, Slumdog still would have taken the whole thing.