The Academy is planning to use instant-runoff voting for the best-picture category to avoid the win-with-11% potential. See http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2009/08/31/academy-changes-best-picture-voting-rules/ and http://www.thehugoawards.org/2009/09/oscars-copy-hugos/

Get a quick walk-through of how instant-runoff voting works (and what's good about it) at http://is.gd/2LWOc

It's nowhere near as complicated as many people seem to think it is, and generally cuts down on the wasted-vote and spoiler-candidate effects.

As to improving the show, I'd suggest using an idea theater blogger Peter Filichia suggested for the Tony Awards. (Let me warn the rabidly spoilerphobic right now that you will not like this.)

Do the show live early in the day, then edit it for broadcast that night. Cut out all the mispronounced readings of the nominees and simply list them all on screen while the winner is announced. Edit the acceptance speeches to exclude all the endless thanks to people the TV audience has never heard of, and only include anything actually interesting or touching that the winner said. This would leave much more time for clips and other forms of actual information and entertainment.

Making the Oscars more entertaining? I'll make it simple (and ride on Lisa's comment) - have Bret Michaels get smashed by a set piece after each award is given. Makes me laugh every time.

But, really, main awards only (actors, actresses, screenplay(s), director and picture), no splashy (and usually awful) production numbers, a longer acceptance speech window and, for God's sake, cut the audio from the audience during the "In Memoriam" segment. I always feel bad for the people who died whose names are met with a smattering of applause.

My favorite awards show is the Tony's and it comes in on time (or just a minute or two over) because they only show the major presentations and cut to a fast reel of the rest. The Oscars need to put more awards into their 'technical' night and do the same thing. Lord knows I love costuming but who really cares to hear from the winner and there are many others that fit this bill. They also spend too much time on the upfront schlock - if it ain't Billy Crystal it ain't worth the time, IMO.

I have an idea: make it commercial free. Would cut an hour-plus right out of it. Take a cut of the Transformers 2 gross; at least then the movie can be good for something.

4 words: Let the winners talk.

Some of the best moments have been the genuine outpouring of emotion by those who won. Think Halle Berry, or Julia Roberts, or Cuba Gooding Jr., or Roberto Benigni. Give me an extra 90 seconds of that instead of hours of scripted banter and dance numbers.

Why not just call the whole thing off? There is no reason for award shows to be on television.

Shorten it to 60 minutes and tell me who won best actor, best actress, best editor, best screenplay, best writer, best director, and best picture.

In. Out. Done. Don't care about the rest.

And for god's sake, stop the acceptance speeches. Your best lines were written by someone else.

For those of us who understand math, this increases the unpredictability of the results. It also means that it would be possible (though unlikely) for a film to win best picture with 11% of the votes unless they institute an instant run-off or ranked voting system.

The problem with the OScars is the tradition. They can't redo the entire format without losing their cred (what little they have left). It would be nice to have a more entertaining list of categories, but that's not going to happen.
I think what needs to change is the film selection. When was the last time a movie won that wasn't released in November or December? And when was the last time a movie won that was successful (honestly successful, not just a $50 mil, like $250 mil)? The problem is that out of everyone I know only about 10% of them have watched the nominated movies. I have to go very far out of my way to watch the nominated films. It shouldn't be that hard, and it wouldn't be that hard if they started nominating movies that were released throughout the year instead of in the last week of December.
I have to say that I love the fact that they allowed new movie trailers in last year. That was surprisingly exciting. It woulnd't be the worst thing in the world if the Oscars turned into a movie lovers dream come true, with only trailers for commercials. That would be better than all the shampoo commercials we usually get. But I'm just fantisizing now.
I thinkt his 10 nominations thing is a misguided step towards the mainstream. It's not the worst thing in the world, in the end we're going to know which movies stand a chance and which don't. I think we should be happy that the Academy is even willing to change anything.