Curious. David K. has only had 16 votes in the last 24 hours
I show him gaining 125 votes from ~11p to 9a Pacific Time
In the same time period, I show Nilu J with a gain of 970 in overnight votes.
Well, she seems to be a member of an ethnic and/or religious minority. I don't know about the US but here in Germany, members of such groups usually have very strong feelings of solidarity towards other members of the same group. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't a lot easier for her to get huge support from her community if she asks for their help, than it would be for average joe. I don't want to say that this has to be the case, I'm just in the hunt for other explanations rather than the obvious.
Even if she is part of an ethnic or religious group that has unwavering support that miraculously translates into actual voting - you cannot throttle the votes within minutes of your competitor making a vote surge. If she had all of these people voting because they actually support her - they would be voting when they get around to it over the course of a day. I have seen this with my own campaign over and over and over. Even in the groups that were addressed all at once and have a long history of staunch support for its 'people' don't immediately drop everything and vote and only a small portion actually get votes in. They also don't have the will to sort out the real life bugs in the system which means many hard earned votes go away and never come back. When they don't come back, you have the exponential challenge of getting more and more voters that are further and further removed from your cause. They further they are, the less they care. The less they care, the less they vote. I imagine if it was expressed mathematically, it would look like magnetics where the field strength falls off very rapidly as distance increases. At this point, most people are numb to anything I post and getting new voters that are hugely disconnected would require all the celebs in Hollywood to rally around which seems doubtful (and still probably would not work).
The prize on the line is an obscure and very specialized piece of equipment that very few people understand. The top 3 people involved are not exactly going hungry or about to die from some horrible disease. To the public, our cause has nothing to grab them - no emotion and no reason to take the time to vote. If we were all stricken by a disease and the the cure was the grand prize, votes may be easier to come by, but obviously that is not the case. The reality is that the number of people available to vote is very very small and votes cannot be throttled or completely stopped on demand. This is a full throttle exercise - I have gone FULL throttle from the beginning seeking every possible vote and you can clearly see the near linear result of that effort. Why would anyone keep a reserve of voters in their back pocket in a cumulative daily voting system? They wouldn't.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
