I prefer the way they do it now compared to voting, as not everyone puts the same amount of time into all of the same games. This way it's possibly to decide whether a game that a minority ranked highly but the others didn't play is worth a spot. They probably just need a more structured way for the minority to convince the rest of the crew (and to select what games could drop out), so there is less wheel spinning. Deciding the structure early may lead to preparation, which could help with the arguments and reduce frustration.
Because proportional representation sucks. Say the crew had already decided on the top 3 for a category, and just needed to choose a winner. If they did it by voting you could get the following scenario: 4/9 vote for Game A, 2/9 vote for Game B, and 3/9 vote for Game C. In this scenario, Game A wins the category despite the majority of the room wanting a different game to win. And this ignores the scenario where one person really likes a small game that they think no-one else likes, so votes instead for their second choice because they think it has a better chance of winning! Because it can't be a blind vote, the last person to go gets a "deciding vote" and can ignore their original choice to make an acceptable alternative win. It'd be complete garbage.
If they did a pure vote I assume they would use some type of preferential voting scheme (which is kind of how they manage now during the discussions, after games get eliminated early). For instance in your example it would be possible for Game C to win if the 2 people who liked Game B preferred C over A.
People like to take the staff lists and do weighted averaging, but has anyone done a preferential voting scheme to see how the results turn out.
Log in to comment