"Poll question: SPILLED LATTE NOMINATIONS: How should they work?"
There's been debate in the past how to determine the winner of the Spilled Lattes. I figured I'd put it to a vote.
FIRST (and current) OPTION: nominee is an honorary title for the top five vote-getters, and the winner is determined from the same initial ballot.
SECOND OPTION: nominees are derived from a first ballot, and the field is narrowed to the five top vote-getters per category. Then, once we have nominees, we allow a month or so for voters to make their selections from the more limited second ballot, whose options were determined by the first ballot. (i.e. how the Academy does it)
Pros to the first option: - it's hard to get people to vote once, let alone twice, so it simplifies the process. - multiple ballots often water down the results, so the top vote-getter from the first write-in ballot doesn't necessarily win on the second limited-option ballot. A one-ballot system arguably more accurately reflects the true opinions of the voters (for example: see NYFCC this year-- 12 Years a Slave won their first ballot, but once options were narrowed down, American Hustle won because more people whose first choices were eliminated from the second ballot preferred Hustle to Slave).
Pros to the second option: - a narrower field would make it easier for aspiring voters to seek out and watch ALL the nominated films. Currently, they see what they see, so the most oft-viewed films are most likely to win. Results may prove more interesting if more people see more of the nominees. - a narrower second vote may also encourage more people to take part, as it may feel more "official" than the current method.
I'm also obviously open to other ideas, considering the sparse voter numbers last year. Anything that will bring more people to the table, even if it means electing a more formal voting body, people who are committed to voting on the Lattes this year-- a Latte Academy, if you will.