Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote in <tygFAMJ18....@netcom.com>:

Yes, I wondered about that.  But it's an Australian worldcon, so I assume
there was a fairly small base of nominators.  When you have relatively few
nominators spreading their choices over a large field, ties become more
likely.  Or so it seems to not-very-mathematical me.

Nominees are given the chance to decline nomination, a right exercised most
often in cases where two works by the same author make the ballot in the
same category.  As the LOCUS web page points out, presumably Swanwick was
given this chance and declined.

The LOCUS web page also points out that it's unprecedented for anyone to be
nominated three times in one category, and that moreover, if Swanwick
doesn't win, he will vault past Michael Bishop for largest number of
fiction Hugo nominations without winning -- a title widely known, although
the LOCUS web page doesn't mention it, as the Bull Goose Loser.  It's hard
to imagine that Michael Swanwick, a man with a very fannish attitude about
these things, is unaware of this.  That being the case, his decision
suddenly makes plenty of sense.  If he loses, he makes Hugo history two
different ways.  If he wins, he still makes Hugo history one way _and_ he
has a Hugo.

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh