Jump to content

Recommended Posts

An open vote system would encourage voters to stick to their commitment or to whom they gave their first round vote. Perhaps they could then go secret in the final rounds.

That's what has always bothered me about the voting system. How does it make sense to vote for a city in 1 round and then not vote for them in the next round. Maybe open voting would be beneficial. Although I'm guessing the IOC voters would never actually go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

If true, that raises an interesting point. Does the IOC's voting system inherently work against its own interests. Could a voting system be devised which provided the same outcome (Rio 2016) but which wouldn't have left a sour taste in Chicago? I can't think of one off the top of my head to be honest. If you end up with a small share of the vote you end up with a small share of the vote. But the sheer shock and drama of "going out first" seems to be the thing that hurt more than the rejection. So could a voting system be devised that didn't lead to the outright dejection Chicagoans felt, one that had it been in place would now see us talking about Chicago 2024?

I actually think it is possible. The preferential voting system that is now in place for the best picture Oscar would have worked well for Olympic races.

Here's how it works:

There are no longer voting rounds. There is just one vote.

Each voter ranks all the candidates honestly from first to last. (There is nothing to be gained by giving a top competitor an artificially low-ranking as will be explained shortly.)

To tabulate the votes, a pile of ballots is created for each one of the contenders. All the ballots ranking Rio first go in one pile. All the ballots ranking Madrid first go in another pile, and so on. The candidate receiving the fewest number one rankings is eliminated and those ballots' second place rankings then kick into effect and are added to the piles of the remaining cities. This elimination process continues until one candidate has 50% plus one of the total number of ballots cast.

Just as with the Academy Awards, the final announcement proclaims which city won and does not need to enumerate the vote tabulation.

Because of the way the system is set up, it is in each voter's best interests to rank the cities honestly. Only the number one vote is counted until that city is eliminated, at which point the number two choice kicks in and so on. It really is a fair way to reach a true consensus.

Of course, Chicago still might've been eliminated first if it received the fewest number one rankings, but by eliminating the rounds and instituting preferential voting instead, there is no reason for this elimination to be made public. No one apart from the handful of people tabulating the votes would ever know. All that must be announced is the winner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that's how they did the Oscars, but that would be a great system to implement for Olympic voting. Don't think it would actually happen, but at least it would be a small step towards eliminating collusion. Maybe it is in everyone's interests not to disclose the voting results. But, and I almost hate to preface a sentence with this.. in the age of social media, I'm not sure that idea would fly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, but I have a sneaking suspicion the US won't win 2024 no matter which city is the candidate (assuming there is an American candidate). Just a feeling. I suspect that yet another loss after a hard fought campaign could prompt the US to sit out 2026 as well. No hard data for any of this, of course, but if I had to make a prediction that's what it would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some kind of preference voting system like that could work well, yes, Athensfan. I like tha idea a lot. Once change though:

Of course, Chicago still might've been eliminated first if it
received the fewest number one rankings, but by eliminating the rounds
and instituting preferential voting instead, there is no reason for this
elimination to be made public. No one apart from the handful of people
tabulating the votes would ever know. All that must be announced is the
winner.

I'd be inclined to make it totally transparent rather than totally secret. Announce the winner publically, then publish all the votes afterwards. That way you remove the drama and public upset that Chicago felt, encourage certain IOC members not to promise votes they won't give, and let everyone see it's an open organisation.

In other words, make the announcement and the TV coverage all about the winner (as it should be), but let everyone who wants to see the votes see them.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

>> I'd be inclined to make it totally transparent rather than totally secret. .

But that would make it much harder to get bribes and kickbacks!

Anyway, I say do it as a reality show. Have all the cities compete each week and kick one off until you get the host city. You know all of you would watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>> I'd be inclined to make it totally transparent rather than totally secret. .

But that would make it much harder to get bribes and kickbacks!

Anyway, I say do it as a reality show. Have all the cities compete each week and kick one off until you get the host city. You know all of you would watch.

Though it would never happen, thats actually a really cool idea...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'm in favor of maximum transparency. However, in this case I'm not sure it helps. The original question was whether a different voting process might be less insulting/discouraging to the losers. Because the voting was conducted in public rounds, Chicago felt humiliated. Publicizing the preferential voting could have a similar result. Plus, you'd really have to publicize all the data from each ballot to give an accurate picture. That's just too many numbers for most people to process.

The one downside of this Best Picture voting system is that the contender eliminated first could conceivably have the largest number of second place votes. But of course if you assign weighted point values to the ordinals you leave the system open to a lot of abuse, making it possible for people to vote their closest competitor last even if in reality it would be the second choice. The Oscar system may not be perfect, but at least it's not open to manipulation (unless you have corrupt vote counters).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'm in favor of maximum transparency. However, in this case I'm not sure it helps. The original question was whether a different voting process might be less insulting/discouraging to the losers. Because the voting was conducted in public rounds, Chicago felt humiliated. Publicizing the preferential voting could have a similar result. Plus, you'd really have to publicize all the data from each ballot to give an accurate picture. That's just too many numbers for most people to process.

It got brought up earlier, but I think the media didn't help matters with regard to Chicago. Their losing was not an upset, but the media made it seem like it was such a shocking result (the first round out probably was, but they still over-played it). And a big deal was made of Obama making the trip over there, as if his presence was going to push them over the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It got brought up earlier, but I think the media didn't help matters with regard to Chicago. Their losing was not an upset, but the media made it seem like it was such a shocking result (the first round out probably was, but they still over-played it). And a big deal was made of Obama making the trip over there, as if his presence was going to push them over the top.

As others have pointed out, though, the problem wasn't that Chicago lost. The problem was that they went FIRST. That was the shocker. If they had lost in the final to Rio, I believe the response from the media and everyone else would've been different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'm in favor of maximum transparency. However, in this case I'm not sure it helps. The original question was whether a different voting process might be less insulting/discouraging to the losers. Because the voting was conducted in public rounds, Chicago felt humiliated. Publicizing the preferential voting could have a similar result.

I don't see the need to publically focus on the loser with the TV cameras glaring at the least popular city's delegation. That is a bit too cruel and I think that shock was the thing which hurt Chicago most. And actually, remembering back to 2009, Danny and a few other Brazillians were really pissed off so much of the focus was on the "shock" of the first round rather than Rio's victory. So I think it'd help in that sense too.

If a losing city can't cope with a fully transparent voting process with voting patterns published a few hours afterwards, that's tough. Someone has to finish last and there's only so much you can do to spare feelings and encourage a repeat bid. If FIFA said, "no, we won't publish our votes because it might hurt the bidding nation's feelings" we'd be laughing at another Blatterism and the opaque nature of FIFA, I'm sure.

And besides, the Chicago delegation were pretty sure they knew what had happened afterwards anyway. Making that inside knowledge public probably isn't going to change much. But making it less of a drama and less of an unecessary ordeal for the city, its Mayor, its President, might make a difference.

Publicity and TV coverage for the winner only, full transparency everywhere else publshed online afterwards. Think that'd be the right balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also totally bored by the idea of Dallas.

I think that the intangibles will hurt them (might be perceived as a smaller locale to Atlanta, lacking in history and tradition like a Boston or a Philadelphia), but from a techincal standpoint, they might have something there. I don't know that it would be enough to win, but I'd still like to see what they have to offer since they might actually have a solution to that pesky stadium issue that every other U.S. city is faced with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I think should be considered for American bids is the differences between our regions and how that would effect the feel of an Olympics held in different areas. For example, the Atlanta Olympics was very much a Southern Olympics. Therefore I do not see why our next Olympics would take place in a similar region.

A Dallas Olympics would probably have a Texan atmosphere to it but I don't think it would be substantially different from a Southern Olympics or representative of the United States as a whole to have two back to back Olympics from the South, especially when we have never had a Northern city host the Olympics.

Dallas would be Atlanta 2.0 is what I'm saying. Atlanta 2.0 in a bad way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is New York looking? Issues aside, if they were able to make it work, I think NYC would be wildly received.

I haven't seen or heard anything to indicate there's any interest. As noted in the past.. NYC took their shot for 2012 and then moved on. In the 7 years following the bid, 3 new stadiums and 2 new arenas were built in the area (not to mention major renovations ongoing at Madison Square Garden) and other projects spurred somewhat by the Olympics have gone on. Total cost of the 5 stadiums/arenas alone.. approximately $6 billion. So to say the least, it would be a tough sell to spend billions more on an Olympics lasting 2 1/2 weeks, as opposed to these buildings which will likely be around for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also totally bored by the idea of Dallas.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, but weren't you the one just a few days ago advocating the likes of Minneapolis & a repeat Atlanta? I just find this observation rather peculiar. Since out of the 3, I'd rather see a Dallas bid & I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only one making that choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to pick on you here, but weren't you the one just a few days ago advocating the likes of Minneapolis & a repeat Atlanta? I just find this observation rather peculiar. Since out of the 3, I'd rather see a Dallas bid & I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only one making that choice.

I made it pretty clear that ultimately Atlanta would not be a great outcome for the US or the Olympic movement, if it got a second Games, but I was just making my point that it had potential, and wasn't the complete write off people were trying to paint it as.

I've never mentioned Minneapolis, nor was I advocating Atlanta as the best choice. I'm just interested in the potential.

Edited by runningrings
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a resident of the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Dallas has a much better shot at being one of host cities for a USA 2026 FIFA World Cup than a 2024 Summer Olympics, most likely because there's already a ready made venue in place (Jerry World).

In fact I will be shocked if Dallas doesn't make the cut for USA FIFA 2026 should the USA bid again (which I think they will)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a resident of the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Dallas has a much better shot at being one of host cities for a USA 2026 FIFA World Cup than a 2024 Summer Olympics, most likely because there's already a ready made venue in place (Jerry World).

In fact I will be shocked if Dallas doesn't make the cut for USA FIFA 2026 should the USA bid again (which I think they will)

Not only bid but win and host.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...