LAST EDITED ON 03-06-02 AT 09:28 PM (EST)

If I remember right, in each of the past 2 Survivors, the eventual winner voted for the bootie every chance they got. If this holds true, Vee and Sean will not win. I remember posting last season when Tom was the only one to vote for Clarence that he would not win. I can't remember where I posted it, here or on SS, but it did pan out. Just my theory, watch who everyone votes for and you will find the strong alliance. Of course, it takes a while for it to pan out, but until I can think of anything else, it's all I can offer up.

Edited to say that it was pointed out to me that Rich voted for Stacey in the first Survivor. Well, no one knew how to play the game back then, so It didn't count. Nah, my theory just got shut down in 2 minutes. boo hoo

• Nope, but good shot !!!,Naked, 09:26 PM, 03-06-02
  • RE: Nope, but good shot !!!,Kaumanaboy, 09:29 PM, 03-06-02
• RE: If past voting history has any meaning,true, 09:52 PM, 03-06-02
• RE: If past voting history has any meaning,smokedog, 10:07 PM, 03-06-02
• RE: If past voting history has any meaning,Amily, 10:21 PM, 03-06-02

Kaumanaboy,

Richard Hatch, the winner of S1 voted for Stacy his first vote, and Tagi booted Sonja. After that, he had a perfect vote record.
Tina did have a perfect boot record, and I believe that Ethan did also, but I'm too lazy to check.

Naked

Naked, I was posting my correction as you were posting. You guys are fast!

Hey, I kinda like your theory. Definately something to keep in mind.

true

Some more info based on this thread:

S1: Richard voted for the bootee 9 out of 10 times
Kelly was 7 for 11

S2: Tina was 10 for 10
Colby was 10 for 11

S3: Ethan was 10 for 10
Mamakim was 11 for 11 (!)

Each time the runner up got one more vote (because they won the last IC) and all three times they lost to the person they brought with them into the finals.

S1's stats are a little off because everyone was figuring out the game for the first time (although you can see Rich was light years ahead of everyone when it came to scheming and alliances).

For the other two series you can see that strong alliances and cooperative voting last right to the end and are the ultimate survival tool.

Here's a similar thought ... I recently rented the video of SI. On the tape, I was amazed at how much Richard was shown in his voting "confessionals" as being the clear mastermind behind the voting - he blatently told the camera that this person had to go because .. blah blah blah (this was before everyone knew that alliances existed) But what I thought was that, if I am not mistaken, he was hardly ever shown on TV telling his reasons for his vote - maybe to hide his leadership??? So ... should we be watching for the person whose vote is not explained (often) for the TV audience???