psocoptera (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
psocoptera) wrote2015-08-23 09:44 am
psocoptera) wrote2015-08-23 09:44 am
Entry tags:
2015 Hugo Awards - numbers
What do we know, what do we think we know? I'm sure other people will be doing this too but I like to take a crack at it.
5950 total voters. Looking at the novellas (5337 voters), 3495 for No Award, 1842 splitting the nominees, with one of the Wright stories and the two non-Wright stories roughly evenly matched around 500-550, and the other two Wright stories majorly trailing in the 100-150 range.
So one interesting thing here is that even if the Puppies had put out an official *order* for their slate, and gotten those 1842 votes backing one candidate, they still would have been crushed by the No Award voters. We see that again in Short Story, where there are 3053 No Award voters and 2214 for all five nominees.
It's still true but less pronounced looking at the Editor categories, 2672 No vs 2178 Anyone for the Short and 2496 No vs 2411 Anyone for the Long. Also of interest here, 586 first place votes for VD in the Short, 166 first place votes for him in the Long, he eventually runs-off to 5th place in the Short and last place in the Long. Still an unbelievable embarrassment to the field that he was on our ballot, but on the other hand, that's 12% of the Short category and Deez Nuts is polling at 9% in the Republican Primary in North Carolina.
Chaos will think this is interesting: in the novelettes, "Day the World Turned Upside Down" and No Award were 1700 to 1732 in the first pass, and it took three eliminations for "Day" to pull ahead. Hugo voting people not wildly excited about this candidate. Wesley Chu, on the other hand, 2655 out of the gate against 529 No Award.
I'll probably link to more analysis as it happens.
ETA: Here's one initial analysis.
5950 total voters. Looking at the novellas (5337 voters), 3495 for No Award, 1842 splitting the nominees, with one of the Wright stories and the two non-Wright stories roughly evenly matched around 500-550, and the other two Wright stories majorly trailing in the 100-150 range.
So one interesting thing here is that even if the Puppies had put out an official *order* for their slate, and gotten those 1842 votes backing one candidate, they still would have been crushed by the No Award voters. We see that again in Short Story, where there are 3053 No Award voters and 2214 for all five nominees.
It's still true but less pronounced looking at the Editor categories, 2672 No vs 2178 Anyone for the Short and 2496 No vs 2411 Anyone for the Long. Also of interest here, 586 first place votes for VD in the Short, 166 first place votes for him in the Long, he eventually runs-off to 5th place in the Short and last place in the Long. Still an unbelievable embarrassment to the field that he was on our ballot, but on the other hand, that's 12% of the Short category and Deez Nuts is polling at 9% in the Republican Primary in North Carolina.
Chaos will think this is interesting: in the novelettes, "Day the World Turned Upside Down" and No Award were 1700 to 1732 in the first pass, and it took three eliminations for "Day" to pull ahead. Hugo voting people not wildly excited about this candidate. Wesley Chu, on the other hand, 2655 out of the gate against 529 No Award.
I'll probably link to more analysis as it happens.
ETA: Here's one initial analysis.
no subject
One note without having read a lot of other analysis - i think the number we can draw conclusions from (somewhat) is the ~3500 anti-slate voters. Maybe there's a bit fewer than that, but it seems like that's about how many people voted using something like the puppy-free ballot as a guide. I'd put substantially less confidence on the proposition that e.g. the 1842 people who voted for novellas other than no award are all puppy-slate voters. Some of them could come from the set of anti-slate voters who made themselves read everything and try to vote ignoring their politics. Some of them could come from the set of habitual voters who are oblivious to what's going on this year, a set which i think includes some people (maybe 500? I don't think it's at all a stretch to imagine 10% of Hugo voters who just like voting for the Hugos and are deliberately oblivious to anything happening other than "get your ballot and take your picks". But we'd have to compare to last year's vote numbers to get a real guess for this), and i wouldn't call them "puppy-slate voters" absent more information.
no subject
And I think you're absolutely right about the 1800 not all being slate voters - that analysis I linked to has a good guess at the breakdown. (Also, apparently VD *did* name his first choices.)
no subject
no subject
EDIT: got more caught up on LJ and read through E-Pluribus-Hugo faq (http://sasquan.org/e-pluribus-hugo-faq/) which helps to clarify things some. So I assume a "slate" is a fixed set of things down the line that people with a specific agenda vote for?
no subject
What's a puppy slate? I read through
EDIT: got more caught up on LJ and read through the E-Pluribus-Hugo faq you cited, which helps to clarify things some. So I assume a "slate" is a fixed set of things down the line that people with a specific agenda come in and vote for?