EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: This fourth reprint from Journey Planet’s “Be the Change” issue advocates bringing auditors into the Hugo Awards voting process, and adding online participation to the calculus for changing WSFS rules.
By Trish E. Matson: The travesties of the 2023 Hugo Awards presented at the 2023 Chengdu Worldcon must not be repeated. Procedural and structural reforms must be made to restore the high reputation that the Hugo Awards have earned throughout the decades, which was damaged so severely by the Hugo Awards Subcommittee’s pre-emptive censorship of creators and their apparent discarding of many legitimate votes. For thorough and effective reforms, the changes need to be taken along short-term, mid-range and long- term vectors.
Short-Term Measures
In the short term, the 2024 Worldcon team has already taken several necessary steps toward reform. Committee members involved in the 2023 disgrace will not be involved in the 2024 Hugo Awards process; Nicholas Whyte is now leading the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee team, along with Kathryn Duval, Cassidy, and Laura Martins. While I’m not familiar with the rest of the team, I have a great deal of respect for Whyte. Additionally, administrators have stated that the 2024 Long List with its nominations data will be released immediately after the Hugo Awards ceremony, rather than waiting out the deadline for several months. All of this is reassuring for the short term.
Mid-Range Actions
However, this is far from sufficient for ensuring the integrity of the awards for the future. As reliable as the current administrators seem to be, there is no guarantee that the 2025 team and future administrators will be trustworthy. Many people had great respect for Dave McCarty and his cronies on the 2023 team; indeed, McCarty still has vociferous defenders who claim that McCarty’s actions were forced by the Chengdu site selection itself, or he was sending coded hostage messages through his actions, or other ridiculous excuses. Since the administration changes every year, it’s obvious that we can no longer just rely on Good People being chosen for it every year, and for them to do the right things.
It’s clear to me, and to many other people, that the Hugo Awards must add independent auditors to the awards process for both trust and accountability. No further opportunities for vote manipulations can be allowed. That has to happen throughout the process; the auditors need to be able to see votes as they come in, not be presented with a summary after the fact. If that means the votes have to go to the auditors first, and then forwarded to the Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee, that’s fine. Furthermore, the tabulation also needs to be done via open source software or commercially available products; no more secret, personal, proprietary processes for vote-counting can be allowed – that’s just ASKING for trouble.
In addition, since fear of censorship and retribution from authoritarian governments (and a vaguely worded bylaw observing the need to follow local laws) have been cited as “justification” for censorship by the 2023 Hugo Awards Administration Subcommittee, any fan communities who submit Worldcon bids must include pledges to abide by freedom of speech, expression, and identity. Works and creators must never again be declared ineligible due to the ideas expressed or the personal selves or life choices of the creators; eligibility should rest solely upon the stated qualifications of the individual category.
Moreover, since national, state, and local governments can turn repressive, and circumstances can change quickly for the host of a winning bid, the World Science Fiction Society must have mechanisms for either enforcing anti-censorship bid pledges or declaring the Hugo Awards invalid for that year. It would be preferable to be able to do that in a timely fashion rather than waiting for World Science Fiction Society Business Meetings at the relevant or following Worldcons to take such actions. This would have to be addressed as a separate long-term reform.
I don’t know how to find the most suitable independent auditors or tabulation software, but the 2024 Business Meetings absolutely could and should put together a study committee to determine options for that, to be reported on within 10 months after the Glasgow Worldcon and hopefully voted on within the next two years. However, amendments phrasing an anti-censorship pledge for Worldcon bidders and empowering WSFS Business meetings to declare censored Hugo Awards invalid may certainly be proposed and passed for the first time in 2024 and validated at the 2025 Worldcon, if there is sufficient will for these reforms.
Long-Term Goals
I’ve seen some people calling for the complete detachment of the Hugo Awards from the geographically peripatetic Worldcons, but I think this is unnecessary and ill-advised. The reforms I’ve proposed above should work to safeguard the integrity of the Awards, whereas detaching them, embedded as they are in the reason for even having Worldcons, would create tremendous controversy and undermine both the Hugos and Worldcon itself.
However, there is certainly more that can and should be done to reform the Hugo Awards and Worldcons. The Hugo Awards are not actually very well known throughout the entire speculative fiction community. Out of a world of fans, only a few thousand people each year vote for them. Part of this is because Worldcon is relatively obscure. It’s not drawing nearly enough young people to replace the ranks of leaders who are aging out after years of worthy service. Although improvements in diversity have been made, more is needed.
It’s hard to get involved. People who try can become discouraged because of entrenched territorialism, plus the necessity to be on-site for a lot of volunteer activities, including having a voice in governance. For anyone who wants to get involved in changing how things are done at Worldcons, it can be a shock to learn that the only way to do that is to show up in person, often on different continents, two years in a row, for days, to vote at the time- consuming WSFS Business Meetings – and giving up a lot of other Worldcon activities for that participation.
Fortunately, there is already movement toward the possibility of broadening WSFS decision-making with online involvement. In December, Nicholas Whyte announced[1] that the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon is planning a consultative (nonbinding) online vote about two proposed changes to the Hugo Awards, which would add two categories. This will also act to test the feasibility of adding an online component to WSFS making constitutional amendments, which currently only happens at Worldcon Business Meetings.
The proposed changes are to add two new Hugo Award categories: the Best Independent Short Film Award and the Best Independent Feature Film Award. Whyte said this proposal will be put online for feedback between the close of Hugo voting and the beginning of Worldcon. I certainly plan to vote on it, both to express my opinion and to express support for adding an online component to the structure of making WSFS amendments.
I think trying to move to online-only voting (with no onsite steps) would be far too drastic a change to the WSFS amendment process for now. But adding an online voting component, either between two Business Meetings, or possibly eventually replacing one of them, absolutely seems appropriate to me, as it would increase generational, economic, and geographic diversity. Diluting the dominance of the old-fans network will help increase respect and trust for the Hugo Awards worldwide.
[1] https://glasgow2024.org/blog/2023/12/consultative-vote-on-hugo-rule-changes/