Thumbs up or down for preferential ballot system?

This system sucks in general because it's designed to award the safest film. I prefer voting systems that value "passion", ie. the number one vote. However, the Oscars have such bad taste that the preferential ballot has actually saved them from themselves, so to speak. They are mostly passionate about crap, so their second or third picks (Moonlight, Spotlight) are actually better choices. Yes, I say they stick to this formula.

Neither is ideal. Any kind of ranking system opens itself up to intentional skewing of votes (for example if you wanted Moonlight to win the Oscar this year, you'd have ranked La La Land 10th and vice versa even though you likely didn't think either of them the worst films on the list.) Greatest number of votes merely shows up The Academy if their taste is completely pants!

In theory, most votes seems fairer.  In practice, preferential system results in more interesting and unpredictable winners (though this does not necessarily mean better/more deserving winners.)

The Oscars are massive awards. I think all members who have the privilege to vote should have to watch the nominated films in proper screenings and rate all elements immediately right after watching them. At least then, you'd have actual genuine opinions on quality on all of the films. I suppose it is impractical. But you know, I'm just a member of the public and I see most of the films. The people allowed to vote for who wins an Oscar, surely they should be able to do something like this? I dunno. In my ideal world, that'd be how it'd be. Naive, I suppose. But I don't think it should be!

It is true that if a film has a lot of number one votes it should stay in the race until the end, no matter what.  But if Moonlight didn't get 51 percent of number 1 votes it isn't kicked out of the race.  It is still in the race, it is just that other votes from number 2 onwards are looked at.  And I may not be able to help Moonlight any more than I already have done with my votes, but had I ranked La La Land number two, I would be helping that have a greater chance to win.

So, say I was the person who didn't want Moonlight to win: I'd rank it number 10 as no matter what it wouldn't get any votes from me.  I mean, for the films that have a chance of winning such as Moonlight and La La Land, isn't this the case or have I misunderstood?  

Oh, I see.  So only people whose number one choice got the least votes will have their number two vote considered.  If that's the case, the system seems fair.  

If voters picked LLL or Moonlight as their original #1 film, their other rankings didn't matter. However, the rankings for everybody else mattered. It all depends on where the other ballots placed Moonlight and LLL on their list.

A voter could pick Hidden Figures as their #1 film, but in the final round, their #5 ranked film would morph into a #1 vote.

If a voted hated LLL, they would logically put it last and below films they perceived as having "no chance" like Hacksaw or Hell or High Water.

I don't think there are any real strategy to muck the system. If you preferred Manchester and Moonlight over La La Land, then those votes would have a better chance of being ranked #1 down-the-line then La La Land.

I think it's perfectly fair. You think over films are better, you rank them up there and they have a shot at becoming #1. 

I thought they keep counting until one film has the majority of number ones? This was not always the case, right?

I like the system.

First point, cornnetto's right. Your ballot only counts towards 1 film- your highest ranked film (until that film is no longer in contention). If you wanted Moonlight to win and ranked it first, your vote counts towards Moonlight until Moonlight has the least number of votes (but if it's never at the bottom, then your ballot always counts for Moonlight). 

If on the other hand,your favourite movie was Hell or High Water and really didn't want La La Land to win (presumably because you thought it was a bad movie), then you would rate Hell or High Water first, your next favourite movie 2nd, so on and La La Land 9th. 
After the first round when the votes are counted the film with the least number of votes (least number of 1st place votes - so under all circumstances a film that probably should not win Best Picture) has their votes redistributed to their 2nd place votes. Let's say for this person that was Moonlight, Moonlight gets their vote and will retain their vote all the way to the end. La La Land is only hurt in this scenario in that it doesn't get the vote and Moonlight does, but if this person greatly prefers Moonlight to La La Land, then that is completely fair. People do like more than one movie so if their first movie isn't all the well-liked, I think I would like my vote going to my second place movie. That way I could vote Hell or High Water 1st, Manchester by the Sea 2nd and La La Land 3rd, even though I know logically HoHW has no chance of winning that film will have my vote as long as its in the race, Manchester has a better chance of winning and my vote can go there for as long as its in the race once HoHW is out. With a straight #1 vote system, I would have voted Manchester, and I wouldn't have been able to give any support to any of the films which I really like and think are really good. It's very rare that a person's ballot would get much lower than their 5th choice
I think this system has people voting for their favourite movie nominated even if it has no chance of winning because it will eventually get down to your vote going to the film you think is best that most other people agree with.

Yes, that does give preference to "safer" films arguably. Since more people are likely to like it and more people will have them ranked fairly high. However, in what scenario is Moonlight the safe film? That win shocked me because I couldn't imagine that many people having it in their top 3 (let's say) choices. That is a divisive film. It has many themes that the Academy is constantly accused of not embracing (especially older white males) and it's a tough watch. It didn't win because it's the safe film, it won because even people who didn't particularly like it, could still recognize everything that the film did well. Hence they voted their favourite film 1st (be it HoHW, Lion, Hidden Figures, Fences, Hacksaw Ridge, etc) and Moonlight not far behind. Isn't that exactly the type of film that should win BP.

In the last few years, in the final days of the race, Boyhood was seen as "safer" (ie less divisive) than Birdman, and La La Land was seen as "safer" (themes that the Academy can more easily get behind) than Moonlight, and yet those one-time front-runners couldn't pull off the win in a preferential voting system. In my opinion, the preferential voting system works in the advantage of films that are more widely seen as good even if they're not loved as much. I don't know why it gets so much hate.

They only way I think people would attempt to vote strategically just to hurt other films is if they're choosing their ranking based on what is the most likely to be redistributed first. Like if I thought HoHW would be in 9th place after the first round, I would vote for that first, and then vote for Fences as the next last place film, but that is utter nonsense. The vast majority of voters will actually just rank the films in the order they like them.

I understand the concept. I guess my point was that I believe the Academy changed the % to a majority in the last few years.

I have no problem with films like Spotlight or Moonlight winning - they were certainly worthy films lauded by the critics.

I just don't think there was this overall passion with La La Land and the Academy, considering it lost 8 out of 14 nods. And the rest of the categories were determined by popular vote.

So you would be okay with a movie that receives for example all third place ranking but no 1st place ranking winning best picture? I know, I wouldn't.

A thumbs up; I like the system and disagree that this only rewards safe films. How was Moonlight the safe film? If we were going to be politically correct then they could have awarded Fences. Moonlight WAS a passion pick. La La Land would have been too, but I don't see how the #1 and #2 of the year can't both be considered passion picks. The safe picks would have been the ones further down the list. People are acting like the movies that have won in the past 5 or so years are the lowest common denominator, when they're not. These movies were either the highest on a person's ballot or one of the highest. A ballot isn't wasted just because your #1 doesn't end up being the most popular option within the Academy. I mean, idk about everyone else here, but I feel pretty passionately about the top 5 in my own personal line up.

People overthink it. Being “divisive” isn’t that big of a deal. All something like EEAAO needed to do is be ranked higher than it’s next closest competition (let’s say it’s All Quiet for the sake of this discussion )on 51% of the ballots. Ballots it is ranked last on still only count as one.
Also I’m seen a lot of projecting by people who bring the preferential ballot into the reasoning. Assuming a movie they aren’t crazy about is more divisive than it really is or a movie they liked is more accessible. Since we will never see the ballots we will never know what the academy finds divisive.