... nominees? Just winners instead? I mean, what's the real point? To show who got close to winning, like they do in sports? If so, shouldn't the nominees be ranked?
shareIt's good because it makes it more interesting leading up to the show, and during the announcements.
J. Robards sings:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xS7s6YkV KEI
Two very important reasons off the top of my head. First, if you don't narrow the field down to a few nominees, you risk having too diffuse a vote for the winner with the possibility of several ties. It would be like everyone having a write-in vote directly for the winner, and there are usually hundreds of qualifying candidates in a year. Second, if the shows only had winners, there would be no suspense to keep a TV audience watching and no reason for most of the nominees to show up. If you knew Nicki Minaj was slated to win something, why would other urban female acts show up to do musical numbers or sit in formal wear in a theater before she made her speech? It would be beside the point. But when you have five possibilities you have a reason for all of them to appear and draw ratings and hopefully increase sales for their music. I do think who is the actual winner matters more for what I consider legit awards voted upon by a body of industry and peers (Oscars, Grammys) vs. audience driven awards and awards where the voters' identities are vague or not expert in the discipline on which they're voting (AMAs, Hollywood Film Awards).
share