Yes, it was well regarded amongst critics and audiences around the country.

But is "La La Land" hands down the best film of the year?

Is it good enough to beat out films like "Moonlight" that are widely considered more daring and unique?

History says yes.

Because the Oscar voting process favors mediocrity.

Back in 2009 the the Academy switched from a straight popular vote to instant runoff voting or preferential voting.

The Academy wanted to better ensure that the film with the broadest support won.

But the other side of that coin is that bold, polarizing films get pushed to the side.

At its most basic level, instant runoff voting involves ranking a number of choices rather than choosing just one.

Then the choice with the fewest votes is removed.

And then those votes for that candidate have their votes counted according to their second-favorite candidate.

Then the candidate that now has the fewest votes is removed, and so on.

It goes all the way until a candidate has 50 percent plus one of the vote.

This applies to both the nominations process - although that does get a little weedy - and the process of selecting a best picture winner.

So, how would instant runoff voting ultimately play out in a real-life scenario?

Let’s look at 2011 where "The King’s Speech" beat out: "127 Hours," "The Fighter," "Black Swan," "Winter's Bone," "True Grit," "Inception," "Toy Story 3," "The Social Network," and "The Kids are Alright."

All these films were probably first-place picks on a lot of ballots and dead last on others.

It’s very possible that the passionate fan bases of each of these films all had "The King’s speech" ranked second or third.

When their first-place vote wasn’t enough to stay in the game their second-place votes were counted and re-added to the mix, ultimately allowing "The King’s Speech" to come from behind.

Because "The King’s Speech" had the broadest support rather than the most passionate support, it took home the prize.

The new voting system seems to favor a certain type of film.

We’ve had instant runoff voting at the Oscars for six years, uh, and fully half of those years have been movies about the movies.

And I would count "The King’s Speech" as being sort of adjacent to that.

"The King's Speech is about getting training in speech and elocution and all things actors have to go through.

Think "Birdman," "Argo," "The Artist."

The Academy is made of 6,687 film industry professionals who probably enjoy movies about themselves.

They might not rank a film about showbiz as number one, but many might place it second or third, which is precisely where it's most dangerous.

In 2005 before instant runoff voting was instituted, "Crash" won best picture.

It’s a film people either despise or love.

I think we really want those movies that inspire extreme reactions one way or the other.

Sometimes the movie wins that you hate, but sometimes the movie wins that you love.

I’d rather see that than the movie that everyone was just kind of okay with.

In fact, "Crash" beat out a film that might have easily have won in today's instant runoff system: A period film about entertainment directed by Hollywood royalty, George Clooney. "Good Night, And Good Luck."