September, 01 2009, 03:04pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Paul Fidalgo, communications director - paul@fairvote.org
Rob Richie, executive director - rr@fairvote.org
Motion Picture Academy Adopts Instant Runoff Voting for Best Picture
Decision Highlights How Reform Backed by Obama and McCain Can Improve Real World Elections
WASHINGTON
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science announced this week that
it will use instant runoff voting to choose its honoree for Best
Picture, ensuring that the most celebrated movie of the year is one
with strong support among Academy members. Used by the Academy in Best
Picture voting before 1945, which was the last time ten pictures were
nominated, instant runoff voting
(IRV) is a system in which voters rank their preferences in order of
choice. The nominee with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots
cast for that film are moved to voter's next choice among the remaining
films. The process continues until one film has more than half the
votes and is declared Best Picture of the Year.
Recommended by Robert's Rules of Order for elections when voters can't
gather together in person, IRV (also called "preferential voting") is
used by organizations with tens of thousands of members like the
American Association of University Women, American Chemical Society,
American Medical Student Association, American Mensa, and the American
Political Science Association. At least 51 colleges and universities
use IRV for student elections, including UCLA, the University of
Oklahoma, Harvard and Stanford. More than a dozen cities have adopted
IRV for election to their top offices, including Memphis (TN),
Minneapolis (MN), Oakland (CA) and San Francisco (CA). In 2002,
President Barack Obama was the prime sponsor of pro-IRV legislation in
Illinois, and Sen. John McCain backed a pro-IRV ballot measure.
Academy voters already appreciate the value of ranking candidates.
Since the 1930s, the Academy has used the choice voting method of
proportional voting to nominate best picture and most other categories.
With choice voting, Academy members rank candidates just as with IRV,
but it takes about a fifth of the vote to secure one of five
nominations. Choice voting ensures that nearly all Academy members help
nominate at least one nominee for best picture and other categories.
Earlier this year, the Academy announced that it would expand the Best
Picture category from five to 10 nominees. Given that the nomination
threshold will now be about a tenth of the vote, keeping the
"first-past-the-post" voting system where voters can indicate a
preference for just one choice would theoretically allow a film to take
home the Oscar despite being potentially disliked by 89%. With IRV in
place, the Best Picture winner is sure to be preferred by a large share
of Academy members. This demonstrates how IRV improves single-seat
political elections when more than two candidates run--because voters
can rank their choices on their ballots, third party and independent
candidates are no longer potential "spoilers," and no one takes office
with small pluralities, but are far more likely to be the consensus
choice of the majority.
"It's encouraging to see the Motion Picture Academy wisely adopt
instant runoff voting," said Rob Richie, executive director of
FairVote, a nonpartisan election reform organization that supports IRV.
"It serves as another example of how IRV can not only improve how we
pick our favorite movies, but how we can have more meaningful choices
for leaders and representatives in our elections for public office."
FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve universal access to participation, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation for all. As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to vote, universal voter registration, a national popular vote for president, instant runoff voting and proportional representation.
LATEST NEWS
'Free Mahmoud Khalil': Progressives Demand Release of 'Disappeared' Columbia Grad
"If the feds can snatch up an American green card holder for speech they don't like and get away with it, they won't stop here. They'll be able to erase the right to speech they don't agree with and kidnap anyone who dares resist."
Mar 10, 2025
Condemning the Trump administration and immigration officials for detaining and imprisoning Mahmoud Khalil over his involvement in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University last year, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a warning for those who believe the arrest is an isolated incident rather than an indication of the president's approach to dissenters.
"If the federal government can disappear a legal U.S. permanent resident without reason or warrant, then they can disappear U.S. citizens too," said the New York Democrat. "Anyone—left, right, or center—who has highlighted the importance of constitutional rights and free speech should be sounding the alarm now."
Khalil, a graduate of Columbia who was a student at the school until December, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Saturday evening as he was returning home to his university-owned apartment with his wife, who is eight months pregnant. He is reportedly being held in Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, over a thousand miles away from home, while the Trump administration works to revoke his green card under the State Department's "catch and revoke" initiative launched last week with the goal of deporting students who are deemed to be "pro-Hamas."
Khalil, who is an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, was an organizer of the solidarity encampment that was erected on Columbia's New York City campus last spring to demand the school divest from companies that have supported Israel's bombardment of Gaza.
Jewish-led rights groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow were among those demanding his release on Monday, and a group of Columbia faculty members were preparing to give a press conference alongside Jewish leaders and immigrant rights defenders to speak out against "the unprecedented and unconstitutional arrest of a permanent resident and Columbia graduate student in retaliation for his political activity."
IfNotNow said that ICE had "abducted and disappeared" Khalil and that the attack on his constitutional rights "enables [President Donald] Trump's authoritarian consolidation of power against his political opponents.
The group condemned the Trump administration for "carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety."
In New York, hundreds of people gathered Monday afternoon in front of the city's ICE office to demand Khalil's release.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, said the arrest and efforts to deport Khalil are "an assault on our First Amendment and freedom of speech."
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also spoke out against Khalil's arrest, noting that after he was taken away, his pregnant wife had "no idea where" he was. She attempted to visit him at a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where she was told he was being held, but he was not there.
"This should terrify everyone," said the Democratic lawmakers. "So pro-'freedom of speech' that Republicans will DETAIN you if you disagree with them."
While Columbia University officials released statements in recent days about "reports of ICE around campus" and said the Ivy League school "has and will continue to follow the law," administrators have not spoken out about Khalil's detention or demanded his release.
Columbia administrators faced condemnation last year for their crackdown on student protests against the United States' support for Israel's assault on Gaza, which had killed tens of thousands of Palestinians when the demonstrations started, with ample evidence that Israel was targeting civilian infrastructure and not just Hamas targets.
Zeteoreported that Khalil reached out to the administration the day before his arrest, asking officials to "provide the necessary protections" and expressing fear over the Trump administration's threats.
Khalil told officials he had been "subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanizing doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labeled me a security threat and called for my deportation."
"I haven't been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm," Khalil wrote.
New York City Council member Chi Ossé said that "every Democratic politician and American with a conscience" should speak out against Khalil's detention.
"They're not doing this despite his rights," said Ossé. "They're doing this because of his rights—they're violating the Constitution on purpose, testing the fragile system to see what they can get away with... If the feds can snatch up an American green card holder for speech they don't like and get away with it, they won't stop here. They'll be able to erase the right to speech they don't agree with and kidnap anyone who dares resist."
Ossé called on all those who support civil and constitutional rights to "flood the phones" of members of Congress and demand they push for Khalil's release.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Energy Secretary Makes Clear Trump 'Ready to Sacrifice' Communities and Climate
"As Wright speaks to industry insiders, members of impacted communities, faith leaders, youth, and others are assembling for a 'March for Future Generations,'" one campaigner said of the action at CERAWeek.
Mar 10, 2025
As environmental justice advocates were arrested outside a major energy conference in Houston on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump's energy secretary faced criticism for his remarks to the government officials and oil and gas executives attending the event.
"Chris Wright, a former fracking CEO who essentially purchased his Cabinet position through $450,000 in Trump campaign contributions, personifies the deadly alliance between the Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry," said Oil Change International U.S. campaign manager Allie Rosenbluth, citing a figure that includes his wife's donations.
Wright's speech at CERAWeek, hosted by S&P Global, Rosenbluth continued, "made clear that he and the rest of the Trump administration are ready to sacrifice our communities and climate for the profits of the fossil fuel industry—which spent $445 million in total to influence Trump and Congress last election cycle."
"We have a human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and spread our roots in our homes. We cannot do that as long as these poisonous companies... continue to encroach on our communities."
CNBCreported that at the event, Wright vowed to support natural gas production and said that "the Trump administration will end the Biden administration's irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens."
Despite his past comments about the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, Wright rejected claims that he is a climate change denier and said that "the Trump administration will treat climate change for what it is—a global physical phenomenon that is a side effect of building the modern world."
"There is simply no physical way wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas," Wright claimed. He also singled out wind, saying that "it's incredibly high prices, incredibly huge investment, and a large footprint on the local communities, so it's been very unpopular for people that live near offshore wind turbines."
While in Texas, Wright announced a permit extension for Delfin LNG, an offshore liquefied natural gas export terminal proposal near the Louisiana coast—which Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, called "just a continuation of Chris Wright acting in the interest of Big Oil and Gas."
"Without hesitation he is advancing a project that has a different design, funding, contracts, and operational plans since it was first reviewed over six years ago," she said. "It is clear his only job is to make fossil fuel corporations rich by advancing oil and projects, which will leave families and small businesses to struggle with higher energy bills."
According to the Houston Chronicle, "It's the third Gulf Coast LNG project to receive support since Trump took office."
Rosenbluth similarly slammed the decision, saying that "his performative extension of Delfin LNG's export authorization during his speech represents just how deeply intertwined the Trump administration is with the fossil fuel CEOs at CERAWeek."
"As Wright speaks to industry insiders, members of impacted communities, faith leaders, youth, and others are assembling for a 'March for Future Generations,' where they're demanding an end to new fossil fuel projects and government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry," she noted. "The movement for a just transition away from fossil fuels, and towards a clean energy economy that works for all of us, is continuing to fight—regardless of how many fracking CEOs Trump puts in his Cabinet."
The Chroniclereported that "police arrested eight climate protesters Monday after they linked arms to briefly block a street next to CERAWeek by S&P Global... The activists were among hundreds who marched from nearby Root Memorial Square Park to the conference, which is hosted annually at the Hilton Americas-Houston and the George R. Brown Convention Center."
Climate advocates held a banner at CERAWeek by S&P Global in Houston, Texas on March 10, 2025. (Photo: Luigi W. Morris)
During a press conference at the park, Bekah Hinojosa, co-Founder of South Texas Environmental Justice Network in the Rio Grande Valley, said that "our community has been resisting LNG projects for over 10 years. Those projects are the Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG, and the Rio Bravo pipeline. Last year, our community proved in court that these LNG facilities would be environmental racism. We are a low-income, brown, Native community, and LNG would be a cancer factory."
Jake Hernandez of Texas Campaign for the Environment declared that "we have a human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and spread our roots in our homes. We cannot do that as long as these poisonous companies, like Cheniere, continue to encroach on our communities. I've seen a lot of harms and consequences that LNG buildout can cause to our communities. This is just an earnest plea to help us put an end to LNG!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
WaPo Columnist Resigns, Says Publisher Killed Column That 'Respectfully Dissented' Against Bezos Edict
"This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos' new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees," wrote one journalist.
Mar 10, 2025
Columnist and editor Ruth Marcus said Monday that she is resigning from The Washington Post after CEO and publisher Will Lewis allegedly decided not to run a column she penned critiquing billionaire owner Jeff Bezos' recent changes to the opinion section, according to a note from Marcus that was obtained by multiple media reporters.
In the note, which is addressed to both Bezos and Lewis, Marcus wrote that as an opinion writer, she was "honored to offer commentary that readers could be assured constituted my best independent judgment of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, on the opinions side of the newspaper, that appears to be no longer the case."
In late February, Bezos—who has owned the paper since 2013—announced a major change in the outlet's opinion section. From now on, the opinion section will advocate for "personal liberties and free markets" and "viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others," according to an email from Bezos. The section's editor, David Shipley, decided to depart and the paper lost thousands of subscriptions after Bezos' intentions became public, according to NPR.
The move was denounced, including by the Post's own chief economics reporter, Jeff Stein, who called it a "massive encroachment" on The Post's opinion section and said that the move makes clear "dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there."
In her farewell note, Marcus said that the Lewis' decision "not to run the column that I wrote respectfully dissenting from [Bezos'] edict... underscores that the traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded."
Marcus, who has been with the paper since 1984, separately sent a note to staff in which she emphasized that her decision does not suggest "what anyone else should do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves," according to a copy of the note obtained by Semafor's Max Tani.
Marcus' departure comes amidst greater turmoil at the Post. In the fall, Bezos decided to block the paper's endorsement of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris and ended the Post's tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. Hundreds of thousands of readers canceled their subscriptions in response. The paper has also undergone layoffs and experienced other high profile departures.
The news that Marcus was leaving the paper was mourned online on Monday.
"The tragic self-destruction of a great newspaper continues. I had the privilege of working with Ruth Marcus for years and she is the best of the best. Whether you agree with her or not, she is the model of journalistic excellence and integrity," wrote New York Times journalist Peter Baker.
"Terrible news," wrote journalist Julia Preston. "Ruth Marcus writes a well-researched, level-headed column. She is a voice of reason and decency. This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos's new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular