Which is exactly how the anti-puppies campaign worked: multiple authors coordinating their fans, via their blogs, to vote No Award. It was highly organized, in exactly the same way puppies campaign was.

Which authors? I know there is the puppy free slate website that has been floating around. And I think an editor associated with Tor (Maybe TNH or PHN) said no award was not a dumb idea. But the big authors who have weighed in on the puppy drama (Flint, Martin and Scalzi) have not been supporting the no award everything.

Martin, was not pushing no award. If you had read any of his blogs on this, you would know he has been vocally against no awarding everything.

But the puppies did something different to what was normally done. Lets say I agree with you, that something like Scalzi's pimpage posts are campaigning. Previous campaigns have a) never been to the same scale as the sad puppies and b) never been as successful.

I think if Scalzi had in the past come out with a 'recommendation list' that comprised of the majority of categories and never discussed the nominated work. And then that list became the Hugo ballot, the outrage would have been the same and it would have been no awarded.

There is a difference to an author talking up what they like occasionally, and campaigning. I mean for example here's Martins recommendations for the 2013 Hugos.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/262170.html

Leviathan Wakes, The Wise Man Fears and 11/22/63 make up his recommendations.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2013-hugo-awards/

Not one of those stories made it to the Hugos that year. Despite Martin being the biggest author in the industry at the moment. Him recommending something does not have that much of an impact on things.

Sure campaign will happen. But the voting electorate can also take a stand against that campaigning when it happens. As we saw this year.