The following excerpts from the Official Jury Manual outline voting and tabulating procedures for the Honens Second Jury. The Honens Juries employ the “Optimal Jury Scoring System” created by the Competition’s Official Mathematicians Professors Ernest Enns and Moses Renert. This system, monitored and regulated by Mr Enns and Mr Renert, ensures absolute fairness.

1. Immediately after all Quarterfinal performances, the jurors convene in the official Jury Room and are joined by the violinist who has collaborated in the chamber music recitals and the composer of the work specially commissioned for the Competition (as with members of the jury, the violinist and composer may not offer views about any of the competing pianists). Each juror receives three ballot papers, one for the solo recital (including the commissioned work), one for the chamber music recital, and one for the performance of the commissioned work alone, each containing the names of all pianists who have performed (the “slate”). The collaborating violinist receives a ballot for the chamber music recital. The composer receives a ballot for the performance of the commissioned work.
2. The ballot for the solo recital is completed by the jury while only considering the recital, including the performance of the newly commissioned work. The ballot for the performance of the commissioned work is completed by the jury and the composer when only considering the work’s best performance. The ballot for the chamber music recital is completed by the jury and the violinist when only considering the chamber music recital. Each juror, the violinist and the composer score the pianists on the slate using the natural numbers 1 to 20, 1 being the score for a pianist who has, in his/her opinion, the least to recommend him/her, 20 for one of extremely high accomplishment. Each juror, the violinist and the composer decide their own scale of grading without reference to other Jury members or artists; however, scores must be kept within the set numerical parameters. Decimal scores are not allowed, so there will inevitably be ties in each individual score. The same method of scoring is used for all three ballots.
3. If the Jury Chairperson has ruled that any individual juror is ineligible to vote for a particular quarterfinalist because of a prior relationship, the Official Mathematician will calculate a score for that quarterfinalist. He/she will do this by evaluating the ranking of that quarterfinalist as if the juror in question had not scored any of the quarterfinalists. The Official Mathematician will then assign a score to the juror’s ballot which will maintain the same ranking. This maintains the integrity of the scoring and ranking process both for the quarterfinalist concerned and for all the other quarterfinalists.
4. Each juror, the collaborating violinist and the composer give their completed, unsigned ballot papers to the Official Mathematician. The violinist and composer then leave the Jury Room.
5. The Official Mathematician then retires to his/her designated tabulation room while the jury discusses all pianists. He/she converts the scores from the ballot papers for the solo recital, the chamber music recital, and the best performance of the commissioned work, including the ties, into rankings. The method of conversion from scores to ranks is as follows: the highest score of each juror receives rank 1, the second highest score rank 2, and so on. When ties arise, as they inevitably will, the scores are given equal rank in such a way as to preserve the ranking of those with ranks above and below. For example, if the fifth, sixth and seventh highest scores of a juror are tied, each will receive rank 6, i.e. the average of ranks 5, 6 and 7. The eighth highest score of that juror will then receive rank 8. Similarly, if the first and second highest scores are tied, each receives rank 1.5. The next highest score receives rank 3.
6. The Official Mathematician reserves the name of the pianist who ranks highest for the performance of the commissioned work. (He/she will make the announcement at the meeting of the Second Jury, specified in paragraph 27 below.)
7. The Official Mathematician next creates two slates, one for the solo recital and one for the chamber music recital. These two components of the Competition are given equal weight and are thus combined into a single slate. He/she takes this combined slate and from it constructs two lists. The first list contains the nine names at the top of the slate, the second list contains the next six names on the slate. Both of these lists are presented to the jury in alphabetical order. The first list of nine are semifinalists and the list of six form the residual slate.
8. The Chairperson of the Jury asks each juror whether there is a pianist not on either slate who he/she feels strongly ought nevertheless to be considered as a semifinalist. Each juror, including the Chairperson, has the right to add one name to the residual slate. Assuming all seven jurors nominate an additional pianist, the number of names on the residual slate will reach a maximum of 13. Three pianists are ultimately chosen from the residual slate to be semifinalists, making a total of 12.
9. The Chairperson invites each juror who has added a name to state briefly why the added pianist ought in his/her view to be considered. The Chairperson may also invite general discussion on the added or other pianists if he/she thinks it appropriate.
10. Each juror receives a ballot paper containing the names of the pianists on the residual slate. He/she then scores the pianists on the slate using the natural numbers 1 as the lowest to 10 for the highest possible score.
11. Each juror gives his/her unsigned ballot paper to the Official Mathematician, who combines the results and produces a list in order of those ranking the top six.
12. The Chairperson invites discussion of the list. If a majority of jurors decide that the ranking ought to be different, a reordering is allowable. The Official Mathematician will list the possibilities that can change the final outcome. Voting on this list is by a show of hands. Should there be no majority, the ranking reached by the original vote stands.
13. The names of the top three ranked pianists chosen by this process are added to the nine already chosen, to make the required total of 12 semifinalists.
14. Immediately after the Semifinals, the jurors convene in the official Jury Room and are joined by the singer who has collaborated in the song performances (as with members of the jury, the singer may not offer views about any of the competing pianists). Each juror then receives two ballot papers containing the names of the semifinalists, one for the solo portion of the semifinal recital, the other for the song portion. The singer receives a ballot paper for the song portion only. The calculation of the result for the best ensemble performance (a combination of the votes for the chamber music recital of the Quarterfinals and for the song portion of the Semifinals) is reserved until a later time in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph 27 below.
15. Each juror and the singer score the pianists on the slate using the natural numbers 1 to 20, 1 being the score for a pianist who has, in the juror’s and the singer’s opinion, the least to recommend him/her, 20 for one of extremely high accomplishment. Each juror and the singer decide his/her own scale of grading without reference to other Jury members; however, scores must be kept within the set numerical parameters. Decimal scores are not allowed.
16. Each juror and the singer give their completed, unsigned ballot papers to the Official Mathematician. The singer then leaves the Jury Room.
17. The Official Mathematician then retires to his/her designated tabulation room while the jury may discuss all performances to date by all remaining pianists. As before, he/she converts the scores from the ballot papers into rankings. The method of conversion is identical to that described in paragraph 5..
18. The Official Mathematician creates two ranked lists, the first for the solo piano portion of the Semifinals, the second for the performance with singer. These are then combined, weighting the solo piano and performance with singer portions at 75% and 25% respectively. This new ranked list is then combined with the ranked list of the Quarterfinals, each given equal weight to form the ranked list.
19. The top three names on this list are the “first slate” and those pianists are finalists. The next four names on the list are the “residual slate.” Both slates are given to the jury in alphabetical order.
20. The Chairperson asks each juror whether there is a pianist not on either slate who he/she feels strongly ought nevertheless to be considered as a finalist. The Chairperson also asks the Mathematicians if the various rankings provide any special insights. Each juror, including the Chairperson, has the right to add one name to the residual slate. The number of names on the residual slate will reach a maximum of nine. Two pianists are ultimately chosen from the residual slate to be finalists, making a total of five.
21. The Chairperson invites each juror who has added a name to state briefly why the added pianist ought in his/her view to be considered. The Chairperson may also invite general discussion on the added or other pianists if he/she thinks it appropriate.
22. Each juror receives a ballot paper containing the names of the pianists on the residual slate. He/she then scores the pianists on the slate using the natural numbers 1 as the lowest to 10 for the highest possible score.
23. Each juror gives his/her unsigned ballot paper to the Official Mathematician, who combines the results and produces a list in order of ranking.
24. The Chairperson invites discussion of the list. If a majority of jurors decide that the ranking ought to be different, a reordering is allowable. The Official Mathematician will outline the possibilities that can change the final outcome. Voting is by a show of hands. Should there be no majority on the alternate possibilities, the ranking reached by the original vote stands.
25. The names of the top two ranked pianists chosen by this process are added to the three already chosen, to make the required total of five finalists.
26. At a time after the Semifinals, to be arranged by the Competition administration, the jurors convene for an official meeting. Each juror receives a ballot listing the names of all pianists, other than finalists, who have performed in the Competition, and who have not for any reason withdrawn during its course. The ballot paper is headed “Raeburn Prize for Artist of special promise.” Each juror puts a mark beside the name of the pianist who is not a finalist who he/she considers to have shown the most promise of becoming a major artist at some future time. Each juror gives his/her completed, unsigned ballot paper to the Official Mathematician.
27. The Official Mathematician retires to his/her designated tabulation room. At this point he/she will tally the votes for the Raeburn Prize. The pianists with the most votes wins the prize.
28. Prior to this meeting, the Official Mathematician will have combined the rankings derived from the scores for the chamber music recital of the Quarterfinals and the song portion of the Semifinal recital to determine the winner of the prize for “Best ensemble performance.” He/she will have also determined the winner of the prize for “Best performance of the commissioned work” in the same manner. Now, he/she retires to his/her designated tabulation room to tally the votes for the Raeburn Prize. The pianist with the most votes wins the prize.
29. The Official Mathematician announces the names of the pianists who have ranked the highest and, in the case of the Raeburn Prize, has received the highest number of votes. In case of a tie for any of these prizes, the Chairperson calls for a vote by show of hands in order to establish the sole winner.
30. After the completion of the Finals the jurors convene in the official Jury Room and are joined by the conductor of the Finals performances. Each juror and the conductor receive a ballot paper listing the names of the finalists. He/she scores the finalists, judging only the final concerto, using the natural numbers 1 as the lowest to 5 for the highest possible score, with ties allowable. Each juror and the conductor give his/her completed, unsigned ballot paper to the Official Mathematician
31. The Official Mathematician retires to his/her designated tabulation room, while the jury and conductor are free to discuss the performances that have just taken place. As before, the Official Mathematician converts the scores from the Finals ballot papers into rankings. The method of conversion is identical to that described in paragraph 5. He/she then combines the rankings from the Quarterfinals, Semifinals and Finals, giving equal weight to each, to produce a list of the five Finalists in order, with whatever ties have appeared.
32. The conductor is asked to withdraw and the Chairperson invites discussion of the result. Reordering, including equal ranking of the three laureates, is possible by majority vote, by show of hands. In such a case, the Official Mathematician will outline the possibilities that can change the final outcome. Should there be an impasse (i.e. no majority vote for an option different from the original ranking), the ranking reached by the original vote stands. If the original vote does not produce a clear division between the three laureates and the two other finalists, the Chairperson calls for a vote by show of hands in order to establish the division.