An Economist’s View of the New Oscar Voting

Sunday’s Oscar night will be different.? First, there are now ten nominees for best picture.? But perhaps more importantly,?the voting system has changed. Interested in figuring out how this changes the Oscar game???Here’s my best attempt at explaining to the folks from Film In Focus just how this new election math will work out:

Wolfers compares for me the benefits of the exhaustive preferential system by comparing it to our U.S. election system, which he calls “the first past the post” system. “In the U.S. system, there is one round, and whoever gets the most votes wins and we all go home.” The problem with this system, he says, is that “you have an incentive to not vote what you believe. Say you support Ralph Nader. Well, you think he is not going to get elected, so you vote a Republican or Democrat instead because that’s how you ‘make your vote count.’ In the ‘first past the post’ system, everyone identifies the two most likely top candidates and votes between them. It encourages strategic rather than sincere voting.”

In the instant runoff system, though, because ballots are constantly being recirculated rather than tossed out, and this knowledge by the voter should influence him or her to vote his real preference. So, just to take an example from the past, say that in 1998 voters concluded that the top Best Picture candidates, the ones most preferred by their fellow voters, would be?Titanic and?As Good As It Gets. A voter preferring another nominee, such as?L.A. Confidential, and who also hated?Titanic was theoretically encouraged not to vote for?L.A. Confidential but for the film most likely to compete against?Titanic -?As Good As It Gets. In this year’s system, however, because a voter can rank preference from top to bottom, he or she should not worry about a wasted vote. “The good thing about the instant runoff is that it provides strong incentives to vote sincerely,” says Wolfers. “It’s the least unfair system. It’s enfranchising. Think of the guy who votes for Ralph Nader. In the instant runoff, it comes down to two candidates and his preference still counts.”

I love the new system.? It’s how we elect politicians “back home” in Australia: it’s not as complicated as American journalists make it sound, and it strikes me as being fairer.? Perhaps once Oscar-watchers get used to the new system, we can use this to start a conversation about the best way to elect the next President.

And my tip?? Follow the prediction markets.? Right now, they suggest that the only close race is Best Picture, and the markets give a slight edge to The Hurt Locker, over Avatar. The other awards are easier picks:?Jeff Bridges will be best actor;?Sandra Bullock will be best actress (as much as I disliked her performance in The Blind Side);?Christoph Waltz is a lock to win best supporting actor;?Mo’Nique will surely win best supporting actress; and?Kathryn Bigelow will beat her?ex-husband to win best director.


Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Sara says:

    Thank you #7 – this is what I was going to write, but you said it much better! If this is an economist’s view, it can’t be ignoring basic game theory! (I think we learned about Arrows theorem in maybe the fourth lecture of introductory game theory!) This leads to a really biased post: instant run off “strikes you as being fairer”? Can you give any economic justification for that? Perhaps there is, but it would be nice to acknowledge the weaknesses of your position and then give us a better reason to prefer it than it’s what you’re used to and you happen to like it!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Chris Telesca says:

    Wolfers is wrong about our system. It’s not all “First Past the Post” – many communities have a requirement for a 50% plus one vote majority. And if you don’t get that in the general election, you have a runoff.

    And Australian elections are not like US elections – we have more direct election of candidates and longer ballots. They don’t do that in Australia, hence what works there might not work here.

    Because of the compulsory voting in Australia and their IRV voting, you get people who vote for maybe one or two candidates they know, then they just start picking names that don’t mean anything to them. That’s called “donkey voting”. And to anyone with half a brain, it can’t be better and could be far worse than the system we have now because you’d have votes going to candidates you really know nothing about.

    IRV does not ensure a majority winner in a single election – if you are honest about setting thresholds. In the majority of US elections using IRV, there is no winner who gets 50% plus one vote of the total number of first round votes. They mostly get a larger “plurality”.

    Real runoff elections are the way to go if you want a real majority. They allow the remaining candidates to ask for the support of the candidates who aren’t in the race anymore – and ask for the votes of their supporters also., It gives the public a chance to take more time to examine the differences between the last two standing – which is much easier than trying to rank up to 12 people.

    Also, IRV is a very complex method to count votes to determine a winner. Here in Cary NC, where they used IRV one time in 2007, even the “winner” of the race doesn’t support IRV – because he knows the 1401 votes he got wasn’t 50% plus one vote of the 3022 votes cast. One Town Councilor who supported IRV doesn’t support it anymore because she doesn’t have confidence in the counting procedures – which she and others watched in 2007.

    Right now there is no federally certified voting equipment that will handle the many different IRV methods used in the US. There is movement by IRV’s lead advocacy organization to use open-source code for tabulating IRV elections.

    Funny thing is – they have an interest/alliances with two companies that either write IRV tabulating software or run IRV elections. And an alliance with an internet voting company. So you tell me if their pushing IRV for the great good – or for another reason?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Joyce McCloy says:

    Bulington Vermont voters voted to repeal Instant Runoff Voting on March 2, 2010.

    The Burlington “repeal irv blog” said this about the decision : “Being charmed by it (IRV) ideologically is quite different from experiencing how it twists the results of an election. ”

    The list of places that have rejected instant runoff voting grows as the reality of IRV sinks in:

    Aspen Colorado, Cary North Carolina, Pierce County Washington, Burlington Vermont, the Utah Republican Party and even Georgetown University. San Francisco may be next as people get fed up and even now a lawsuit has been filed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. DrS says:

    Is this the same system that left the 50% of rational Louisiana residents voting between a convicted felon and a Klan leader?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Andrew says:

    Not sure how this could possibly remove strategic voting. Using the example given above, if I preferred LA Confidential, I would list it as my favorite. Knowing that it would not win, however, I would then proceed to place As Good as It Gets in second place and Titanic as the last choice.

    While I did vote my preference, the vote (as a whole) was no less strategic. Certainly a thought provoking post, if just for the logic analysis.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. frankenduf says:

    don’t forget the none of the above vote!!- if NA wins, then new candidates must be fielded

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. JA says:


    The person that has the most #1 preference voters may lose, that’s true- but if they do, it’s because a majority of all the voters preferred someone other than that candidate.
    So they probably wouldn’t win in an U.S. style election either.

    Anyways- don’t expect an exhaustive study on something like voting game theory a blog post about the Oscars… Don’t you think maybe your being a little overcritical?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Hillary says:

    Minnesota Public Radio produced a nice video about IRV –

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0