Jump to content

The IOC voting system


wamel042

Recommended Posts

The non-issue over the missed vote for 2012 got me to thinking about the way the IOC selects a winner.  Dropping the bottom bidder until one gets a majority...is it really the best way to do it?

While I think that 2012 ultimately came down to the two bids that everyone expected, is there a flaw in the system?

Let's say for example, Moscow was the second pick for every member of the IOC.  That would mean that while Moscow had 15 first place votes, it would have had 82 second place votes.  And what if the majority of voters would have ranked London and Paris near the bottom (other than those that ranked them first)?  Is it fair to drop Moscow because it didn't get the early first place votes, but was (hypothetically in this scenario) preferred by more IOC members than London or Paris?

The 2012 scenario aside, could the current system eliminate good bids early on, while allowing weaker bids to go on?  What would you think of a preferential vote system that allocated points per ranking?

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic Games are all about sports, so why not let the IOC make the first cut and after that let the international sporting federations (such as FINA, FIBA, FIFA etc.) vote for their favourite and the selection committee of the IOC.

It would really be a choice for the sporting-venues and the IOC can decide for the other topics, such as security, finance, transport etc. etc.

Perhaps there can be thought of a system that the IOC-committee has 60% of the decision and the ISF's 40%?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the current system is the best way to elect a host city - it already results in the majority of the IOC voting in favour of the next host, I think that's the best we can hope for.  Any other systems could mean a longer wait for results and be more confusing - both of which are slightly unfair to IOC members who have had to sit through several hours of presentations anyway before they vote.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that it's the best way... perhaps not entirely desirable, but the best way the IOC currently has.

Preference ranking could work, but you've got to ask yourself if the average IOC member is up to it... hell, in the vote for 2012 we've been led to believe that some of them couldn't even vote ONCE for the city of their choice, let alone rank the cities in preference order!

Link to post
Share on other sites

no more voting by random ioc members...2020 given to cape town lol

got no problem with the voting system

think its quite cool although i doubt the intergrity and actual knowldge of the IOC members....they certainly vote based on what they feel and think...not whats in a report....

make the votes public...dont be afraid to show who voted for who....that would cause quite a stir...and a few assasinations..

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree with some comments here. This present system may be the best for now. With IOC members now prevented from going to bid cities, it makes me wonder how their decisions can be made impartial because of some reports and visual presentations.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered: wasn't there talk that they might do an "American Idol"-type voting -- put it up for a global vote on the internet?  If that were to happen, then -- and it would be highly complicated but a lot more exciting -- I think it should be public vote - 30%, Sports Federations - 30%, and the IOC 40%.  

That might seem less fair, but it would be more democratic...and Istanbul's only chance of victory since Kamal Atataruk somehow won the Person of the (20th) Century poll, I think Time magazine put on the net in 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A public vote could would be too hard to regulate, I'm sure some smart computer geek would work out how to deliver a million votes to their city of choice, and when you have an undefined number of people from many countries its obvious that the country with the most people or I should say the most computer users eg. America would always win. Its basically a contest of which country can hit enter the most number of times. And voting by this means would disadvantage those in countries that cannot afford a computer and internet access. AND.... what's to stop people from voting more than once. It would be utter chaos.

I think the current system is the most efficient and the easiest to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just remembered: wasn't there talk that they might do an "American Idol"-type voting -- put it up for a global vote on the internet?

That was just the GM's April Fool's Day phoney news posting last year!

Link to post
Share on other sites
A public vote could would be too hard to regulate, I'm sure some smart computer geek would work out how to deliver a million votes to their city of choice

Give them ten minutes or so.

Yeah, but there would be software to safeguard and monitor such patterns.  THose would be thrown out, and the cheating city discredited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...