Join the Emmys debate: Will new voting rules level the playing field, or stack the deck for a few top shows?
In recent years a pattern has developed at the Emmys. A small number of voters’ favorite shows have crowded out others in categories — particularly acting categories — where they receive three, four, or even five of the available nominations. The effect is so pronounced that last year, even at a time with more TV on the air (and online) than ever before, “Succession” was still able to break the record for the most acting nominations in a single year. There are new nominating rules now, but our forum posters don’t agree on how those new rules will widen or narrow the range of nominees. Join their discussion here.
Under the previous nominating system, voters could check off as many names as they wished. So if you’re a fan of a particular show and they have a dozen supporting actors on the ballot, you could check all dozen names, perhaps contributing to some shows dominating the nominations tally. Now there’s a cap in place: “The number of selections each voting member is allowed to make per category in first-round voting will now be capped at the number of nominations specified for that category. Members will no longer be allowed to vote for an unlimited number of selections in any category.”
Theoretically, this might lead one to be more judicious with their votes and spread them around to different shows … Or, if you’re allowed to vote for eight actors in a category, you could just vote for eight actors from your one favorite show, further limiting the number of programs recognized. Indeed, Gold Derby user kat_ebbs argues that this won’t diversify the nominations: “The system is currently designed to favor well-seen shows being nominated (with the restricted ballot to try and prevent that being the only thing). I hate to say it, but there may come a time when they need to go to panels again if things just aren’t seen enough.”
Wolfali responds, “I’m not opposed to panels for winners (although I would rather not at the end of the day) but panels for nominations would be just as bad if not worse [in my opinion].” The academy actually tried that in the mid-2000s, but the results were controversial enough (shows like “Lost” and actors like Hugh Laurie and Edie Falco snubbed) that this system was scrapped after only a couple of seasons.
ColtonM suggests, “This could be controversial but what about a limit to how many actors from one show you can put down?” Wolfali also thinks networks and streamers should strategically spread out their hottest shows so there’s time for audiences and voters to watch more of them: “If you look at the shows that aired last summer that are now in contention like ‘The Bear,’ ‘Bad Sisters,’ ‘Black Bird,’ etc., would they really have had the same impact if they aired all of a sudden now? You need time to build a show.” Perhaps if shows that aired months or even close to a year ago do especially well in the nominations, we’ll see a wider spread of airdates. Of course, those decisions could also be affected by the supply of shows during the Writers Guild strike, but that’s another discussion for another day.
What do you think? You can find this kind of spirited, knowledgeable discussion every day in our forums. Visit them now and chime in.
Make your predictions at Gold Derby now. Download our free and easy app for Apple/iPhone devices or Android (Google Play) to compete against legions of other fans plus our experts and editors for best prediction accuracy scores. See our latest prediction champs. Can you top our esteemed leaderboards next? Always remember to keep your predictions updated because they impact our latest racetrack odds, which terrify Hollywood chiefs and stars. Don’t miss the fun. Speak up and share your huffy opinions in our famous forums where 5,000 showbiz leaders lurk every day to track latest awards buzz. Everybody wants to know: What do you think? Who do you predict and why?