Why did she vote yes? (*spoilers*)

[swallowfeather]

The title is vague so as not to be a spoiler. But maybe those who've read the book know what I mean.

Why did Katniss vote yes on a final Hunger Games targeting the Capitol's children?

I came away from the book loving everything that happened except that. But it was clear to me that Katniss didn't decide that revenge in the form of Hunger Games was what she wanted, that it wasn't anything like that! And it was even clear that, when she sits at the table and "weighs her options carefully, thinking everything through" before voting, that's the moment she decides to kill Coin. Even before I had any idea she was going to kill Coin I knew that that "thinking everything through" was more than just deciding she wanted the revenge--that it had to be something more complex than that. And when she did kill Coin the whole thing almost made sense. But still I have a few questions I can't quite resolve.

- Why did deciding to kill Coin mean she had to vote yes?

- Why did she say "for Prim"?

- Why didn't Collins tell us that Paylor canceled the final-Hunger-Games plan? Because of course she did. Um. Right?

- Most mysterious of all: why does she make this big deal about Haymitch's final vote, and how he is watching her, and how this is the moment when she'll know how much he truly understands her? Does his voting yes with her mean he perceives her plan to kill Coin? And why does *he* have to vote yes in order for her to kill Coin? And why doesn't Collins explain any of this?

[mockingjay12]

I have an answer to all that, but I don't think that deciding yes had ANYTHING to do with killing coin.
She could have perfectly said NO and killed coin. I don't understand why you think those 2 events are related?

She said " For Prim " beccause the capitol killed Prim, making the ca[itol's children suffer is like getting back at that.

It was never said that Paylor cancelled them, and from what we know, they hapenned, though I asmit I also wondered what hapened there because they were not mentioned anywhere else in the book then when the choice was made.

Again, I dont thiink that if he had voted NO, woould havechanged the course of the story as in whether she qould have killed Coin or not. We all know that She would have killed Coin anyways, not even considering what Haymitch voted.

[skyblue]

in my opinion
She knew she would kill coin as soon as he mentioned the last hunger games
I think she said yes 2 the vote more to haymitch than to coin a lot was made of their "special understanding" and haymitch basically said yes to katniss killing coin not the hunger games by "agreeing with the mockingjay" or whatever the line was.
Also by saying yes she kept coin on her side right up to the moment he killed him

[claireablani]

I agree with Sky Blue. Katniss voted yes so that Coin would think that she was under her thumb. Haymitch understood what Katniss' true intentions were and by voting yes, he tipped the vote to the necessary four out of six. Throughout Book 3: Mockingjay, Katniss encounters instances of oppression, rigid thinking, and brutality in District 13. The murder of her sister simply crystallized beyond a doubt the evil and powerlust Coin was driven by, since it had to be under her orders that the parachute bombing of the Capitol children was carried out, and that Prim happened to be on the front line. So, when Katniss says "for Prim," the secret meaning behind her words is that the assassination she is about to execute is for the killing of her sister. Cleverly, "for Prim" also makes sense as a reason for her yes vote and does not rouse Coin's suspicions, allowing Katniss to swiftly continue with her plan.

I think it's clear that Paynell will be a compassionate leader and most likely cancelled the final Hunger Game. After all, Katniss was acquitted for her bold and public assassination of President Coin under the defense of mental instability and trauma. She is demoted and sent to a deserted District 12 to live out her days (or something along those lines). If Paynell wished to cancel the Games, she could simply use the court approved evidence that one of the voters was mentally unstable. And it seems that Paynell is likely the kind of person who would not want to see innocent children die. I do think that Suzanne Collins is careful not to promise a utopic future, and that this open-endedness is perfectly fitting for the raw mood of the book. She does however offer optimism for a better society where people behave humanely so that the book ends with a touch of hope. It's not clear to me either whether Collins meant to leave out the resolution to the final Hunger Games. Perhaps she felt it was overkill to explain Katniss' motives, or perhaps she simply forgot. In any case, I love the character of Katniss for assassinating Coin. Although strategic killing does not seem like a great message for an antiwar trilogy, Katniss remains true to her character: defiant, resourceful, heroic, and true to her own heart's knowing.

[theta001]

I have to agree with skyblue and claireablani as well. At first, I didn't get why Katniss would vote yes to the hunger games, but it makes sense if this was really a way of confirming with Haymitch whether Coin had orchestrated the bombing of the Capitol children or not. Haymitch, somehow, understood this and, by agreeing with Katniss, confirms that he also highly suspects that Coin orchestrated the bombing.

I think the author should have made that point a little bit more clear so as not to cast any doubt on Katniss' intentions, sanity and mercy.

That makes the most sense as to why she voted yes. Just trying to have the conversation with Haymitch that she didn't have before the meeting.

[mockingjay12]

Oh my gosh!
I'm sorry, I must have sounded SO dumb.
I completely fergot about Coin's execution and about the strategic way in which she bombed Prim. Now it all makes sense that " For Prim " would have been a way of saying
" to kill coin for what she did to Prim "

sory guys : )

[TheHobLives]

I agree with Sky Blue. Katniss voted yes so that Coin would think that she was under her thumb. Haymitch understood what Katniss' true intentions were and by voting yes, he tipped the vote to the necessary four out of six. Throughout Book 3: Mockingjay, Katniss encounters instances of oppression, rigid thinking, and brutality in District 13. The murder of her sister simply crystallized beyond a doubt the evil and powerlust Coin was driven by, since it had to be under her orders that the parachute bombing of the Capitol children was carried out, and that Prim happened to be on the front line. So, when Katniss says "for Prim," the secret meaning behind her words is that the assassination she is about to execute is for the killing of her sister. Cleverly, "for Prim" also makes sense as a reason for her yes vote and does not rouse Coin's suspicions, allowing Katniss to swiftly continue with her plan.

I think it's clear that Paynell will be a compassionate leader and most likely cancelled the final Hunger Game. After all, Katniss was acquitted for her bold and public assassination of President Coin under the defense of mental instability and trauma. She is demoted and sent to a deserted District 12 to live out her days (or something along those lines). If Paynell wished to cancel the Games, she could simply use the court approved evidence that one of the voters was mentally unstable. And it seems that Paynell is likely the kind of person who would not want to see innocent children die. I do think that Suzanne Collins is careful not to promise a utopic future, and that this open-endedness is perfectly fitting for the raw mood of the book. She does however offer optimism for a better society where people behave humanely so that the book ends with a touch of hope. It's not clear to me either whether Collins meant to leave out the resolution to the final Hunger Games. Perhaps she felt it was overkill to explain Katniss' motives, or perhaps she simply forgot. In any case, I love the character of Katniss for assassinating Coin. Although strategic killing does not seem like a great message for an antiwar trilogy, Katniss remains true to her character: defiant, resourceful, heroic, and true to her own heart's knowing.

This is exactly why. Well said.

They probably did not have another Hunger Games because that was Coin's idea and Coin (as we all know) died. Since Katniss and Haymitch's vote for yes was (as claireablani said) to fool Coin, there were more votes for no than yes.

[Lovelylaces]

At one point, when they are discussing why Peeta was sent in during the war, someone explains to Katniss, that if she isn't of use to Coin, then Coin will have her killed.

I will have to look this up for a specific reference.

But when they voted, perhaps Katniss felt that if she wasn't on the team with Coin, Coin would get suspicious, and perhaps arrange a 'tragic' death for Katniss.

I believe Katniss weighed her options carefully and did think of Prim... Of how much everyone suffered, of Snow's accusation of whom sent Prim in to begin with. Katniss was thinking of revenge. . . Revenge for Prim, because she believe that Coin may have sent her into the war as a medical aid, because Coin did authorize the bombs, because Coin was just as ruthless and power hungry as Snow... but with a clever disguise.

I think that at this point Katniss realizes all of this, realizes she needs to end this continuation of the oppressive government they endured, by ending Coin's life, by stopping this from continuing on.

She only agreed, to send an appeal for Coin, to make it appear as though she was on the same page.

If she disagreed, Coin wouldn't have been so relaxed about her security and would have keep a close eye on Katniss.

[Mockingbird]

she wanted the capitol kids to suffer all the grief the districts has suffered. But wouldn't you just want to end it all. Stop it all! No more Hunger Games!

[MavsZane]

^ check the above quotes.