The push for No Award is very personal and very diverse; it's not a matter of a few voices calling for No Award.
This is partially because it's long been known that the -only- punishment for breaking the "Thou Shall Not Campaign for a Hugo" commandment is preferentially placing candidates below No Award regardless of literary quality. It's hardly a new rule.
I'm not sure why you think changing the rules -- not to ban slates (pretty much impossible except as an advisory matter) but to make them have less relative power--is impractical. The Founders were smart people, but we know a lot more about voting theories now then they did (see their use of First Past the Post in elections, which explicitly favor 2 party systems; if we had a preferential system of any sort, we'd have a lot more party movement and diversity.
no subject
The push for No Award is very personal and very diverse; it's not a matter of a few voices calling for No Award.
This is partially because it's long been known that the -only- punishment for breaking the "Thou Shall Not Campaign for a Hugo" commandment is preferentially placing candidates below No Award regardless of literary quality. It's hardly a new rule.
I'm not sure why you think changing the rules -- not to ban slates (pretty much impossible except as an advisory matter) but to make them have less relative power--is impractical. The Founders were smart people, but we know a lot more about voting theories now then they did (see their use of First Past the Post in elections, which explicitly favor 2 party systems; if we had a preferential system of any sort, we'd have a lot more party movement and diversity.