Home› Strictly Come Dancing
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Strictly Come Dancing 2024 coverage, including breaking news and rumours for contestants, judges and professionals.
Options

Voting for effect?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 644
Forum Member
✭✭
in Strictly Come Dancing #1
Especially as the only beneficiary of all the phone votes is the phone company, and there is such an argument over the most popular contestants how about 'one phone - one vote'?

That would mean that the couples with the most fans would go through, not the ones with the richest fans!

My wife and I have watched since show1 series1 and regret the greater influence of entertainment over dance content this series. If A2 wins then Strictly is dead, and I can see multiple or block voting fixing it for them to reach the final.

Comments

  • Options
    bornfreebornfree Posts: 16,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    Exactly, I wish BBC would stop inviting the likes of John Sargent and Ann. Make it a talent competition and not entertainment.
  • Options
    Judge DreadJudge Dread Posts: 10,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    bornfree wrote: »
    Exactly, I wish BBC would stop inviting the likes of John Sargent and Ann. Make it a talent competition and not entertainment.

    The BBC to put out a Saturday evening programme that's not entertainment?

    LOL.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    My OP wasn't an anti-Anne post. Whether you want the best entertainer or the best dancer to win then let it be true people power that decides it. At present 100 people voting 10 times for one couple has the same effect as 1000 people voting once for another couple.

    If the result is to be decided by the people then let it be so, by number of fans rather than the size of the 'phone bill.

    Up 'till 2005 Children in Need got the profits from the 'phone votes but now it's just profit for the 'phone company.
  • Options
    bornfreebornfree Posts: 16,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    Pentax20 wrote: »
    My OP wasn't an anti-Anne post. Whether you want the best entertainer or the best dancer to win then let it be true people power that decides it. At present 100 people voting 10 times for one couple has the same effect as 1000 people voting once for another couple.

    If the result is to be decided by the people then let it be so, by number of fans rather than the size of the 'phone bill.

    Up 'till 2005 Children in Need got the profits from the 'phone votes but now it's just profit for the 'phone company.

    Disappointed, it should have been anti Ann. She was rubbish as a politician, is rubbish as a dancer and is not even funny. But then each to their own, you obviously like entertainment provided by the likes of Ann. There's not much I can say. :)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    bornfree wrote: »
    Disappointed, it should have been anti Ann. She was rubbish as a politician, is rubbish as a dancer and is not even funny. But then each to their own, you obviously like entertainment provided by the likes of Ann. There's not much I can say. :)

    Wrong. I am anti-Anne, but my post was not aimed directly at her. I want either the best dancers or the most improved couple to win. So far that would be any of three for me.

    I deliberately left that out of my OP because I actually think that the fairest way to decide the winner is by the number of people voting for them and not by the number of votes cast in total.
  • Options
    Tall PaulTall Paul Posts: 8,786
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    bornfree wrote: »
    Exactly, I wish BBC would stop inviting the likes of John Sargent and Ann. Make it a talent competition and not entertainment.

    Obviously the head of entertainment books the contestants and authorises the contestants to take part via their agents. Dosen't leave any credtibility whatsoever, someone is going to have to look in the management system and what they could do in future series is to ensure they don't have clown figures such as Anne Widdecombe and John Sergeant. Bet you the presenters have as much influence who gets booked in aswell. Shouldn't happen and for future scd's they need to reconsider slightly who they put in and when. Instead of thinking of revenue, should think about other aspects as well. BBC need to do things diiferently and deliver on them too.:)
Sign In or Register to comment.