The voting procedure being utilized was designed by John MacBain, Ph.D., who is both a mathematician and musician (violinist). It has been adopted by the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition since the Eleventh Competition in 2001. Involving a sophisticated computer software program that calculates results based on numerical scores, this system had been previously designed for and used successfully by the International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, and later, the Cleveland International Piano Competition.

There are two underlying premises of the system. The first is that the opinion of a juror is contained not so much in the actual scores given, but in the distribution and spacing of the scores. This is coupled with an assumption that each juror has only a certain amount of “opinion” to contribute to the final decision, much like sending someone on a purchasing trip with a fixed budget. To accomplish this goal, each juror’s scores are statistically measured for spread (measure of opinion content) using a standard deviation, and then adjusted in an accordion fashion, either in or out, to align with a target value. All scores of each juror are also adjusted so that all jurors share the same target average score. Additional methods are applied to accommodate abstentions and rogue scores.

The scores throughout the entire competition are not cumulative, and there is no weighting of any round. Each juror must take into consideration all the competitors’ performances he or she has attended up to the time a ballot is cast. For example, jurors deciding on the top prizewinners must consider all performances of all three rounds in casting the final vote. Scores given by the new jurors of Round III will be proportionately added to the scores and predicated upon the ranking of the performances given during Round III.

Members of the jury will vote by submitting written scores for each competitor on the ballot sheets provided. Completed and signed ballots will be handed to the secretary general of the jury at the conclusion of each round of the competition. The scores from each ballot will be entered into a computer and tabulations will be returned to the secretary general, who will announce the results to the jury. Individual juror’s scores will not be disclosed to the jury.
 

In the event a “controversial” competitor (a competitor considered to be a potential top prizewinner by three or more jurors) has not amassed a high enough total of points to be passed on to the next round, the following procedure is adopted:

At the end of Round I and of Round II, upon the announcement to the jury of the results of the votes, any juror whose top three candidates are not being passed on to the next round, has the right to request discussion, provided that at least two other jurors have also ranked that candidate among their top three choices. (If more than three candidates occupy a juror’s top numerical rankings—e.g. two competitors are given 24 points, and three are given 23 points—only those competitors assigned the highest number will be under consideration as potentially controversial competitors.) Thereafter, a vote may be taken to choose between all the controversial candidates and the competitor with the lowest score of those chosen to be passed on to the next round.

The purpose of the vote upon the completion of Round l will be to select the semifinalists—12 pianists, 12 violinists, 12 cellists, and 10 male and 10 female singers.

At the end of Round l, work sheets marked with lines numbered from 1 to 25 are distributed to the jury. Each juror is asked to write the name of each of the competitors participating in Round l on the line of the sheet corresponding to the score the juror wishes to assign to each competitor. More than one competitor can be entered on the same line (e.g. four names could appear on the line numbered 12). However, the jurors are strongly encouraged to use the full scale in scoring the competitors, enhancing the ability of the juror to express opinion through the numbers. It is important to bear in mind that a low score does not mean that the juror feels the competitor is simply bad, or that a very high score implies excellence. The sheet just serves as an aid to help rank the competitors and is not to be handed in.

Using as wide a spread of scores as possible expresses more clearly which competitors might be preferred by each juror and how strongly the preference is felt.

The average performer should receive a score from each juror somewhere in the middle of the range—around 12. In the event that a juror awards a competitor a number of points that (after processing by the computer) is less than the median processed score for that competitor by 20% of the total scoring range (20% of 25 is 5 points), then that score will be adjusted upwards to meet that limiting value. For example, if the median score for a competitor at the end of Round l is 17 and a juror gives that competitor a 9, that score will automatically be brought up to within 20% of the median and will thus become 12. This somewhat mitigates against the extent of “gaming,” in which an unscrupulous juror might want to eliminate a worthy competitor in order to boost the chances for his or her favorite candidate.

Please note that the score “0” is a special score. This does not imply a very poor performance; rather, it signifies that the juror has a connection with the particular performer and must abstain from voting for this individual. This scoring system will properly handle the abstention without any bias, positive or negative, regarding that particular competitor.

Each juror will also be provided with a ballot sheet listing the contestants’ names in alphabetical order. The juror will copy onto this ballot sheet the appropriate score next to each name, sign this sheet, and hand it in to have the scores entered into the computer.
 

The purpose of the vote upon the completion of Round II Phase 1 will be to select the semifinalists for Phase 2—8 pianists, 8 violinists, and 8 cellists, as well as to select the winner of the New Work Award.  

As there is no second phase of Round II for the singers and no new work composed for them in Round ll, the jury will only select the 4 male and 4 female finalists.

At the end of Round II Phase 1, the jurors will assign points to the 12 instrumentalists and to the 10 male and 10 female singers on a work sheet marked with lines numbered from 1 to 25. Scores given the semifinalists should reflect their performances in both Round I and Round II. Again, jurors will be provided with a ballot sheet listing the contestants’ names in alphabetical order. Each juror will copy onto this ballot sheet the appropriate score next to each name, sign this sheet, and hand it in to have the scores entered into the computer.

If a semifinalist ranked as a potential top medalist by three or more jurors has not amassed the points necessary to move on to the next round, discussion and a possible re-vote for the 8th place (or the 4th place for singers) can only occur using the controversial competitor procedure outlined above.

Each juror in the instrumentalists’ juries will be handed a ballot sheet on which to enter three names in order of rank the juror chooses to have awarded the New Work Award. The first choice should be given a “1,” the second a “2,” and the third a “3.”  When the numbers are totaled, the competitor receiving the lowest total number becomes the winner of the award.
 

The goal of the vote upon the completion of Round II Phase 2 for the piano, violin, and cello disciplines will be four-fold.

          1. To select five finalists.
          2. To select the winner of the Best Performance of Chamber Concerto Award.    
          3. To select two recipients of Jury Discretionary Awards.

At the end of the Round II Phase 2, the jurors will assign points to the eight competitors on a work sheet marked with lines numbered from 1 to 25. Scores for the semifinalists should reflect their performances in both Round I and Round II. Again, jurors will be provided with a ballot sheet listing the contestants’ names in alphabetical order. Each juror will copy onto this ballot sheet the appropriate score next to each name, sign this sheet, and hand it in to have the scores entered into the computer.

If a semifinalist ranked as a potential top medalist by three or more jurors has not amassed the points necessary to become a finalist, discussion and a possible re-vote for the fifth place only can occur using the controversial competitor procedure outlined above.

Each juror will be handed a ballot sheet on which to enter three names in order of rank the juror chooses to have awarded the Chamber Concerto Award. The first choice should be given a “1,” the second a “2,” and the third a “3.”  When the numbers are totaled, the competitor receiving the lowest total number becomes the winner of the award.     

Each juror will be handed a ballot sheet on which to enter two names in order of rank to be awarded Jury Discretionary Awards. The Jury Discretionary Award is given to those competitors who did not move on past Round II, but who the jury feels are deserving of special recognition and incentive.
 

The goal of the vote upon the completion of Round III will be to determine the top prizewinners.  The same voting procedures will apply.  The jurors will assign points to the 5 instrumentalists and to the 4 male and 4 female singers on a work sheet marked with lines numbered from 1 to 25. Scores given to the finalists should reflect their performances in both Round I and Round II. Scores given by the new jurors of Round III will be proportionately added to the scores and predicated upon the ranking of the performances given during the final round. Again, jurors will be provided with a ballot sheet listing the contestants’ names in alphabetical order. Each juror will copy onto this ballot sheet the appropriate score next to each name, sign this sheet, and hand it in to have the scores entered into the computer.
 

Upon being given the results of the processed votes ranking the finalists at the conclusion of the competition, the jurors will be asked to determine, by simple majority vote, whether or not they feel that there is enough of a significant numerical distinction separating each of the prizes to warrant giving one gold medal, one silver medal, and one bronze medal. If the majority of jurors express by a simple “yes” or “no” vote that the numerical separation between two or more competitors is small enough to reflect what is termed in engineering or physics  “uncertainty of measurement,” ties will be declared. In the event of any tie, both medalists will receive the full amount of the prize money designated for that medal.

 
At least one gold medal must be awarded. Thereafter, any combination of gold and silver medals may be awarded up to a total of three medals. A single bronze medal will only be awarded in the event that only one gold medal and only one silver medal are also awarded.