I'm an ardent supporter of "first past the post" voting systems over these proportional schemes, but: Not true. The nomination process for Best Picture consists of Academy members submitting their choices for Best Picture. The ten films with the most submissions become the nominees. In a second round of voting, which will presumably occur the same time as the second round voting has always occured, all Academy members rank the ten nominees in order of preference. It's sort of like in grade school when you pick your group partners by lottery; you put down your first, second, and third choices. Odds are, you're probably going to get your first choice since it's weighted the highest. But if not, you'll get your second choice or (if you're really unlucky) your third. So yes, it will benefit films that are widely liked over films that are passionately loved by a small few. We'll probably see more winners like Gladiator and less winners like Slumdog Millionaire. While I think anything the muddies the intent of the voters is a bad thing, I'm not sure the final results will be worse: the formula of small films that achieve wider popular appeal winning Oscars has left the awards ceremony bordering on irrelevancy -- thus the drop in ratings. At some point the Academy has to make a decision: is Best Picture a mechanism for the filmmaking community to acknowledge the film it collectively admires most, or is a declaration of the movie that will be remembered as most excellent down the road? If the Academy Awards remain a celebration of the filmmaking community, all of these changes are a corruption of the essential point of the gathering. If they are to be focused outward toward the culture at large, this new scheme will probably provide a better Oracle for the movie of a given year. My guess is: the nominations get more diverse and more interesting, while the winners get less diverse and less interesting.