The report below is published in our personal capacity by Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head, and Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator. It does not reflect any official position by Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon For Our Futures, the 2024 Worldcon.
Introduction
Suggestions that significant WSFS decisions could be taken by a vote of WSFS members, rather than at the Business Meeting, have been circulating for some years. The Business Meeting tends to absorb much time and energy from Worldcon participants for the sake of debate which can often seem technical and inward-looking. A direct consultation with membership has the potential appeal of directness and clarity.
We began considering the merits of a trial consultative vote on any Business Passed On from the 2023 Business Meeting after a September 2022 discussion on File 770. We assumed confidently that the Business Meeting at the Chengdu Worldcon would give us some material that we could work with; in fact no fewer than twelve constitutional amendments were passed in 2023, for ratification in Glasgow in 2024.
We felt that most of these were unsuitable for a trial of the consultative vote concept. We decided to concentrate on changes to the Hugo rules. The four Hugo Award rule changes passed by Chengdu included two minor technical fixes, and more substantially an amendment to the Best Fancast category, and the proposal to introduce two new Independent Film Hugo categories. We selected the last of these as likely to generate the most interest, and secured the agreement of the proposers to the idea of making it the subject of the consultative vote trial.
Although the Independent Film proposal would have created two new Hugo categories, it was a single proposal and we treated it as a single measure.
Implementation
We decided to run the vote between the close of Hugo final ballot voting on Saturday 20 July and the start of the convention on Thursday 8 August. The number of WSFS members of the convention would then be at its maximum, and the WSFS Division leadership would (in theory!) be relatively clear of other distractions. We settled on Monday 22 July to Monday 5 August, to allow members two full weeks with two full weekends for the vote.
Initially we planned that the consultative vote, given that it was a trial, would take place purely online, though we changed our minds on this once it became clear that it was not technically difficult to provide a paper ballot to print out and mail. In the event, just one paper ballot was received.
Just before we opened the consultative vote, a large number of WSFS memberships were found by the Hugo administrators to have been fraudulently acquired, and the votes cast by 377 memberships for the Hugo Awards were disallowed. None of the memberships in question attempted to participate in the consultative vote. If they had, we would have disallowed their votes.
We are extremely grateful to Chris Rose for creating a module within the NomNom system to enable the consultative vote to take place. A technical glitch meant that we were unable to open the vote on Monday 22 July as planned, and instead it was launched on Thursday 25 July, exactly two weeks before the opening of Glasgow 2024. Initial interest was strong, with more than 550 votes recorded in the first twenty-four hours. A reminder was sent out about fourteen hours before the vote closed, and another 400 voted in that final period. The overall response demonstrates a high level of member interest. 1,260 members voted in total: 533 (42.3%) in favour, and 727 (57.7%) against.
In order to create a fair and comprehensive ballot, we sought statements for and against the proposed Independent Film categories from, respectively, Tony Xia and Louis Savy, who had made the original proposal, and Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk, who had blogged robustly against it. With the overall appearance of the ballot in mind, we held both sides to a 200 word limit, without sight of each others’ arguments. We are very grateful to all four contributors for producing a balancing pair of statements, which reflected considerable thought. For the record, the two statements were as follows:
Statement in Favour:
In the spirit of the fan community, we believe the respected Hugo Awards should ratify the two new dramatic presentation categories. While the literary awards cover a broad range of works from independent and self-published creators, the Dramatic Presentation awards (film and TV) primarily recognize major studios. This overlooks fan creations and smaller independent films that contribute significantly to the genre.
Recognising independent films is crucial, as myriad high-quality productions have emerged thanks in part, to new technology and film education, bringing diversity and energy to science fiction moving image. These creators deserve visibility alongside independent fanbased writers, podcasts, and magazines and so on.
Highlighting independent works would introduce both the voting community and a wider audience to material they might not otherwise encounter. Additionally, this recognition could foster greater engagement, with filmmakers likely embracing the Hugo Awards and promoting them within their community. Independent filmmakers are also more likely to respond enthusiastically to nominations and attend WorldCons, unlike the often-detached approach of major studios.
Adopting these categories will not only honour the innovation of independent creators but also broaden the Hugo Awards’ legacy, ensuring a vibrant, inclusive future for science fiction film.
(Louis Savy and Tony Xia)
Statement Against
There are three main reasons to reject this proposal: lack of clarity, lack of availability, and lack of necessity.
Firstly, what counts as ‘Independent Cinema’? The proposal states: “The films should not be funded by a major studio or distribution label/platform/streamer,” but fails to state what this means. Do A24 or Lionsgate count as major studios? This lack of clarity about what “major” means would be a significant challenge for Hugo administrators and nominators.
Secondly, are these movies available to nominators? Many independent movies are only available at festivals, or in a handful of cinemas. They are unavailable to most Hugo voters until it’s too late to nominate them.
Finally, is this category actually necessary? Last year’s winner Everything Everywhere All At Once was produced by the independent IAC Films, and won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Independent Film. If these types of movies are already being shortlisted and winning Hugo awards, a new category is not necessary. If anything, adding the categories might serve to ghettoize instead of celebrate this important area of film-making.
In summary, this proposal’s administration would be problematic, features works that would be unavailable to Hugo voters, and for which there is fundamentally no need.
(Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk)
When the proposed constitutional amendment came before the Business Meeting, nobody could be found to speak in its favour, though two people spoke against it, and it was heavily defeated after seven minutes of discussion. The Chair of the Business Meeting informed attendees of the result of the consultative vote at the beginning of the debate.
Feedback on the consultative vote
Buzz online indicated the WSFS community anticipated the vote and were invested in its outcome. The initial December announcement that the Consultative Vote was in the works generated positive comments on BlueSky: “I’m very pleased to see that this experiment will be run,” and, “This is pretty exciting and potentially important for SFFH fans! Glasgow Worldcon is holding a consultative ONLINE vote…Feels like a positive step, in that it’s at least something to try and widen engagement.”
While the vote was open there was quite a lot of activity. This comment appeared on an online forum: “whether you favor or oppose the proposal, I hope #WSFSmembers will take part in this online advisory vote, which will facilitate more worldwide participation and may help lead the way to more inclusive WSFS Business decision-making in future.”
The vote inspired a blog post, which included the following: “…adding an online voting component absolutely seems appropriate to me. Participation in this nonbinding vote will help bring that future possibility closer…On a personal note, I’ll certainly be participating in this vote. I’d been planning to attend the Glasgow Worldcon this summer, and participate in the business meetings [sic]…Now I’m [unsure], but at least my opinion will be seen online.”
Other comments included: “Let’s see if my no vote online counts for anything,” “Hopefully the Business Meeting follows the majority opinion here,” and, “… the level of drama should this vote and the business meeting disagree will likely be quite something.” The social media reminders to vote in the final days were reposted multiple times.
A participant messaged us wishing that there had been an option to refer the matter for further consideration in addition to the straight yes / no options. It is a fair point that the existing mechanism for constitutional change does allow for the refinement of a proposed amendment in the course of ratification, by amending to have the effect of a “lesser change”, and it is difficult to envisage how this could operate in a member-wide vote.
An external commentator condemned the 2024 consultative vote as “a stunt to further the agenda of people who want to add online voting to the functionality of the Business Meeting”. This is incorrect, though it is a confusion we have noted elsewhere. Our intention was always to run a process separate from the Business Meeting, which does not have a mandate to manage consultative votes. (Though frankly we do not see what would be so bad about adding online voting to the Business Meeting.)
A separate proposal for popular ratification was put to the 2024 Business Meeting. It was referred to a committee on reform of the Business Meeting for further consideration, after a ten-minute debate.
Conclusion
We consider this trial to have been a successful proof of concept. The conduct of the vote was not a significant time or monetary cost for the convention. The 1,260 participants in the vote are a significant multiple of those who attended the Business Meeting in Glasgow (which may have peaked at around 150 in the room at any one time, though the full number of those who attended at one time or another will have been much greater).
If such popular votes are included in the WSFS decision-making process in future, we have the following recommendations:
- The voting period should be short, and should be close to the time of the convention. More than 75% of all votes were cast in either the first 24 hours or the last 24 hours of the ballot being open. An extended voting period will not change that, and risks getting the process lost in the weeds. The process needs to be long enough to allow for paper ballots to be received, but no more than that.
- We are not convinced that all constitutional amendments are suitable for a popular vote. For instance, should the membership as a whole expect, or be expected, to have a meaningful view on whether or not Hugo administrators can establish a conversion ratio between word counts in English and another language, which was one of the amendments up for ratification this year? Perhaps there could be or should be a fast track for less controversial changes.
- Some considerable thought went into the crafting and presentation of the statements pro and contra the proposed changes. Our instinct is that the Constitution and rules should provide general guidance to the administrators of future votes in this regard, and avoid being over-prescriptive. Less controversial issues, if they are ever put to a membership ballot, may not need statements pro and contra to be published at all.
- Any future consultative vote mechanism should be part of the WSFS Division of the administering Worldcon, but run separately from the other WSFS areas of responsibility, ie the Business Meeting, the Hugos, and Site Selection. The organisational burden is not onerous, but it is significant enough to require extra human resources. That probably does not need to be hardwired into the Constitution, but it is our recommendation for good future practice.
Members are rightly demanding more transparency and participation in WSFS decision-making, and the suitability of the Business Meeting’s format has increasingly been a subject of discussion. Now, at least, we have some real data about how a popular vote might work.
Nicholas Whyte, WSFS Division Head
Rosemary Parks, Consultative Vote Administrator