Entertainment desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 9

Why are vote tallies not revealed to the public in the Academy Awards voting process?

In selecting winners for the Academy Awards, why do you think that the Academy does not list the full results of the voting process? In other words, why don't they list who came in second place; who came in third place; and so forth? And why don't they list the tallies? For example, Actor A received 387 votes; Actor B received 265 votes; and so forth. Also, while this detail of information is not available to the general public, is it available to Academy members? Is it available to the general public, upon request (for example, at their Library)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the subject produces various hits, including this, which state that vote tallies are not available to the public. Price-Waterhouse does the vote tallying, and probably only a handful of folks there have access to that info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they figure the winners and nominees of 50ish awards, every single year, is all the public can handle. Do you remember what Homer Simpson said about learning new things and pushing old things out? I sure don't! If we start treating the tallies as important, we'd likely forget why we like movies at all. It'd be all about the press they get. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet Variety knows. Someone there, anyway. Just a hunch. They've been around the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, the thrust of my question is why (philosophically) the Academy wants such info to be secretive and confidential? What harm is there in knowing, for example, which film came in second place as Best Picture? They must have some philosophy, justification, or rationale. (Which, by the way, has evolved over the years. In years past, they did reveal rankings. And, on some level, number of votes.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough debates and gripes now about how the nominees are chosen, and grousing about some of the winners as well. It may well be that they don't want all of that to mushroom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps. I am sure that they know that such griping is "par for the course" and certainly to be expected when distributing awards based on a subjective nature. They know that that is the nature of the beast, and it goes with the territory. Actually, it might reduce complaints. For example, if I know that my favorite film "lost" Best Picture by only one vote behind the eventual Best Picture winner, I'd feel less inclined to gripe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to find out which asshole didn't vote for it. A lot of people would take it to the next level and harass that guy. A few hardcore fans may try to kill him. Having fans direct their anger at a faceless cloud is the safer option. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What are you talking about? I am discussing whether or not the Academy should publish the tally / votes / scores / numbers. Not the names of people who voted one way or another. For example, the Academy would say: "The Best Picture winner was Film A and it received 900 votes. Second place was Film B and it received 891 votes." And so forth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a natural progression from knowing that to wanting more detail. Especially if a popular movie lost by a single vote. People don't want to yell at clouds. Makes them feel old. They demand specific scapegoats. Used to be when the judges screwed up an MMA bout, fans could only yell "Stupid judges!" Now they can (and often do) yell "I'll kill every last one of you!" (Context.)

Online, MMA keyboard warriors seem a more violent bunch than movie buffs. But the film crowd has undeniably spawned more dangerous real-world stalkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Perhaps people might want more detail. But, it's not like a loss by one vote could be attributed to one voter. Let's say that Film A got 500 votes; Film B got 499 votes. Yes, Film B lost by one vote. But, we cannot attach the name of one specific voter to that one vote. There were 499 people who voted for Film B. You can't blame just one of them. If anything, you have to blame all 499. Which makes no sense. So, still, there is no scapegoat. Problem solved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Though that may force a more unruly mob to vote on which voter they'd like to punish for the group's "mistake". Scapegoating doesn't have a lot to do with rational thought, or who deserved what. Sort of like an Emmy, but without the admiration. As long as the crowd goes home happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in disagreement that names of voters should not be revealed. I really don't see the harm in publishing tallies, though. In fact, it would be quite interesting to see if a film or actor won by a landslide or by a razor-thin margin over the second place "winner". The only reason that I would not want to see tallies published is, basically, I'd feel bad for the fifth place "loser". I imagine that would be a crush to one's ego to have it publicly published that you came in at last place. And, even worse, if your tally was extremely low, compared to the other four nominees. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not even considering the films which didn't make the top five? That's good. It would be even more embarassing to be remembered as the actor who only one person suggested. And you know people would "need to know" who that one voter was. What kind of loser votes for someone they don't think can win? That's not American democracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was only talking (above) about the final five official nominees. You are extending that to the entire pool of possible nominees (perhaps hundreds or thousands of actors). I had not thought of that. But, yes, that would be the inevitable extension of the premise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if protection-of-privacy laws did not apply to the votes submitted by individual people in the AMPAS voting processes. It'd be one thing to publish the raw tallies, but an entirely different ball game to publish the names of voters in each tally. Bang goes any notion of a secret ballot, and what it can deliver compared to the alternative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of laws are you referring to? And, again, I am still asking about pure numerical tallies, not names of voters. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just commenting on Inedible Hulk's thing about people wanting specific scapegoats upon whom to vent their spleen. You've explained beautifully why no one voter could ever be singled out, but even if one could be, there are surely laws in the US about protecting people's privacy in a whole range of circumstances. How they vote in high-profile processes like the Oscars is surely one such context, otherwise how could they feel confident that information about their votes is unavailable to all outsiders for all time? There would have to be explicit provisions about confidentiality, security and privacy in the voting arrangements. Surely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. AMPAS, I am sure, has good lawyers. So, the "right to privacy" would be a non-issue. In their rules or by-laws (or whatever), they would basically have people sign a statement that says: "If I want to gain admission into AMPAS, I agree to abide by the following rules ... blah blah blah ... one such rule is that my vote can be revealed to the public." Or some such. Somewhat sneakier yet, the official ballot would have printed on it: "By casting this vote, I hereby give AMPAS the authority to reveal my vote to the public." So, if need be, there are iron-clad ways to maneuver around "right to privacy" laws. (If, indeed, any even apply.) Needless to say, AMPAS membership would never agree to any of these ridiculous proposed by-laws. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... or would they? As it now stands, Oscar winners are bound by some type of agreement that prohibits them from selling their Oscar statuette. If they want to sell it, they must sell it back to the Academy for $1. If you had asked me about this proposed by-law (before it came into effect), I would never foresee that the AMPAS membership would agree to such a rule. Yet, they did. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worded in some way other than "they must sell it back to the Academy". They surely can't be forced to sell it at all; but they could be prohibited from selling it - on the basis that it's not their property to sell, but the Academy's property. Given that, it does seem odd that the Academy would buy it back, at any price. Maybe it's not technically described as a "purchase". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they are required to sell it. I believe the rule is: if they want to sell it at all, they can only sell it to the Academy (and not to any outside third party). I think there was a "scandal" (as it were) back in the 50's or so. I think some famous actor died, or maybe the famous actor was trying to sell their Oscar (to the highest priced bidder). The Academy felt that this "cheapened" the Award. So, they wanted to prevent such scandals in the future. I do not disagree with them. Imagine today. Oscars of famous folks would turn into an eBay circus. Thus, the award would become about actors seeking financial windfalls, and not about "excellent acting performances". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the interesting details (about the prohibition of selling Oscars) are here: Academy Awards#Ownership of Oscar statuettes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Music Artist - Vicki Rae Von

I am having a hard time finding anything about Country Music Artist - Vicki Rae Von.

Is there anyway for a short bio with a body of work in music and films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPetry (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I can find. Pretty much bubkis with regard to actual text about her life, just lists of credits mostly. --Jayron 32 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]