After that look on Aras' face at the last Tribal Council when Gervase said he had remained loyal, his mind was made up if it wasn't already. The Baskauskas brothers will deliver this jury for Tyson. Maybe Tina and Laura would have some sympathy for Monica? With as many as three couples on the jury we might be more likely to see a near-unanimous vote, though Tyson is a polarizing figure.



Any altruistic fantasy Monica might have had pre-season is gone now, I think. With competition wins under her belt and having played - as she sees it - a pivotal role in the game, she probably thinks she should and would win against the boys.





Ari: Good to have you back! Books could (and have!) been written about the psychology behind jury voting, but I'll give a summary of how I see it. We've had so many juries and jurors, each with their own way of approaching the process, that it's hard to come up with any conclusive statements. If we can say something universal it's roughly that whoever is most liked and respected usually wins, but more accurately that jurors vote for the person they can feel most happy saying beat them. A season - their season - is largely defined by its winner, and they know that the show we see months later will be the winner's story. It may be tempting to vote for a barnacle out of spite, but they know they will live with hearing that this 'unworthy' person beat them (and only because they used their vote to make that happen). The anger they feel in the moment will likely fade over time, but that vote stands as a permanent conclusion to the season.



Some jurors try to perform a dispassionate assessment of who 'played the best game', but the phrase has become a cliche by now. You'd find very few who don't claim to be voting with that mentality, but for most people it's a reflection of their own skills and values. If you think that Survivor operates with the same moral code as real life, the 'best player' is the one who maintains their integrity. If you're all about challenges, whoever won the most immunities played the best. Everyone thinks they will win and deserve to win on their own terms, and in lieu of that they want to see those qualities embodied in the winner.



It's also worth remembering that the question of who played the best won't have been resolved yet. Everything you do in the game has one fundamental goal: to get you to the end and secure enough jury votes. Playing a perfect game for 38 days means nothing if you can't close on day 39. When it comes to the jury, perception is reality: if they, as a group, think you played well enough to merit the win then you played well in one sense, even if it was entirely unintentional. I wouldn't go nearly as far as those who say that winner played the best by definition, but it clearly determines how we evaluate players' games. If Tyson has crafted his whole game around beating Monica and Gervase in the end, and he loses to Monica, we have to question everything we thought we knew about him.



It's also no use 'making moves' if you can't show that you were responsible for them; everyone out there thinks they're playing the best game until reality hits them in the face, and even when on the jury it's easy for people to think 'I would have won if only...'. Finalists have to part that veil and make a convincing case for themselves.



Jury dynamics are complicated enough normally, but returning players add another layer; Gervase's betrayal of Aras will sting a lot more given their friendship before the game. Additionally, the presence of loved ones can only increase the jury's level of bitterness. If another juror has a personal grievance with a finalist, you might hope they get over it and think nothing more; when that juror is your brother or your daughter, it's much harder to ignore.



So, to answer your original question (finally!): they might not be eager to vote for Tyson, but if the alternatives are a wannabe Tyson and an annoying clinger they'll grit their teeth and do it anyway.