Harry goes - what were the odds on that?

To be evicted? According to the bookies Harry was 33 to 1 earlier in the day.

Its a funny old world

There were 4 people up.  I think the prevailing view is that BB would have liked to see them go in this order of importance:

•     Aaron
•     Harry
•     Faye
•     Jay

 But bookies had them in this order:

•     Faye
•     Jay
•     Aaron
•     Harry

Last time the viewers had a choice they gave Harry the most votes to stay.

This week Harry went from a rank outsider to the man out of the door.  The bookies are not normally that far out so there must have been a lot of voting to save the others in the short time voting was running for (if the support for Harry from the previous vote held up, and there was no real reason why it should not).

Was it possible that anyone had the Means, Motive & Opportunity to change things?

There are three possible explanations as to how this happened:

1.     That is just the way it was: the bookies misjudged the mood of the GBP.
2.     It was a scam perpetrated by gamblers attracted by the 33/1 odds on Harry.
3.     It was a scam perpetrated by another organisation who had access to the running vote totals.

We conspiracy theorists don't like the sound of option 1, and in truth you never see a poor bookie on a pushbike; they don't often get it this far wrong. Paddy Power on BBLB used to turn up and explain to Dermot each week who would get evicted and he was never normally wrong more than once a series.  He was never that far out (33/1 v Odds on which Faye was)

Against option 2 we have a real problem.  The gamblers should have no idea how many votes have been cast for who, especially in a 4 way contest.  Without that knowledge they cannot influence the outcome with any confidence.  For someone to have made money they would:

•     have had to know where the voting totals were and,
•     have a method of getting enough votes on quickly enough to swing the outcome.

Option 3.  For this to work someone or organisation:

•     would wish to influence the outcome of the eviction, and
•     know what the voting totals were, and
•     would have a mechanism for block voting.

For Option 2 and Option 3, insider knowledge would have to exist or be provided.  For Option 2 the only motivator is greed.

If Option 3 were true there are very few organisations that would know what the vote totals were.  However the voting mechanism to block vote does exist since the start of this series.  Facebook provides the ideal opportunity to apply large numbers of block votes very quickly.  Each account can purchase and use 500 votes per eviction/week. Costs are as follows (C5 website):

1 vote for 1 Facebook Credit (7 pence)
12 votes for 10 Facebook Credits (70 pence = $1)
24 votes for 20 Facebook Credits (£1.40)
50 votes for 40 Facebook Credits (£2.80)
100 votes for 80 Facebook Credits (£5.60)

So 500 votes cost £28.00 & 1000 = £56.00

You can block vote your 500 votes on the push of a button (and 2 accounts add up to votes 1000 times on the push of two buttons - a truly automated system using software in the form of the Facebook App).
Note: The Iphone and Android Apps charge £4.99 or £5 for 500 votes - slightly cheaper than Facebook

In the Terms and Conditions C5 says:

34. Channel 5 reserves the right to disallow votes if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that fraudulent bulk votes have been cast (i.e. more votes than a human being could possibly submit in the time available without the use of software or other devices designed to make automated votes).

But this does not seem to allow for the use of any of the Application voting systems outlined above.  In theory all bulk votes could be disallowed but that would negate the reason for having the systems in place.

Channel 5 have not said how they monitor block votes from Facebook and other accounts and do not publish either voting totals or percentages cast using the various mechanisms.  Channel 5 sister publications Daily Express and Daily Star have withdrawn from the (voluntary) Press Complaints Commission supervision so it seems unlikely that they will volunteer such information.

On balance it seems fair to say that an individual or organisation could purchase many thousand votes (using different Facebook accounts) and use them using the new software provided with this series. 

I suggest that the Means to block vote exists now.

Motive? 

Big Brother would have to have a preference about which housemate stays in and potentially wins.  Can that be true?  Is there someone that they want to win?  Is there someone they want out?

Opportunity?

Was anybody watching when the votes were cast? Brian said nothing about votes being verified did he? The voting day allowed in the rerun did go by very quickly. Rumours say that voting numbers are low this series so perhaps it never took many votes to swing it anyway.

I suppose we have to trust Channel 5 that nothing untoward occurred don't we?  After all it does say that:

37. All votes are monitored by Electoral Reform Services.

But of course it does not say how and when.

38. Channel 5's decision in relation to all matters affecting the Vote is final.

I certainly believe the last one though.

If I were an organisation minded to carry out that sort of activity and I knew the vote totals I think I would get a large group of accounts under the control of perhaps one person (who I could trust implicitly and contractually).  Then I would get them to sit there and vote when the moment was right. Just before vote close (when I knew how many votes I needed) I would get them to press the buttons.  Of course that sort of activity would show up if somebody monitored it. 
IF.