Explain how Alesha Dixon or Jill Halfpenny won? Why was Kate Garraway save by the public for weeks? Christine and Jodie got through when they were near the bottom of the leaderboard. Why did Spoony and Ray Fearon go earlier Matt Di Angelo was in the dance off early on in series 5. England legend John Barnes was in the dance off four times. That argument is put about a lot with no real facts to back it up.

I'd argue the best dancer only won in series two, every other series has been won by the most entertaining dancer and frankly why shouldn't that be the case. I couldn't care less if someone it technically brilliant if I'd rather watch paint dry than watch them dance. Last year I loved Rachel's foxtrot and rhumba but that was it, she couldn't hold my attention on any other dance, Tom on the other hand looked like he was having the time of his life on the dance floor and I loved watching him dance, same goes for Austin, Jodie and Christine.

What made so many people angry and frustrated last year, casual viewers and Ds'ers alike was the feeling that our votes and opinions counted for nothing and that the judges could pretty much manipulate who they wanted into the final. If there is a consolation for me last year it is that at least the audience favourite won in spite of, or even because of the fiascos on the previous two weeks. It's imperative that the dance off is ditched, at least in the second half of the series, else we'll be getting another rerun of angry fans who just want a fair bite of the cherry. It should be up to the public who's in the final for God's sake. It shouldn't matter who's in the final to a minority of 4 people.

A Tom/Austin/ Rachel final would have been the first where I couldn't have predicted the winner. I have a feeling that Tom might have won anyway on the showdance but Austin would have put up a hell of a challenge and it definitely would have been more exciting to watch. Austin ticked all the boxes for me and some of his performances were really remarkable for someone with no previous performing experience. I'm afraid I couldn't get Camilla's routines with Tom whereas I loved those she did for Gethin. I thought Gethin was far superior technically, and once he'd cracked the performance mojo, a better performer. I thought Tom very cheesy, technically a bit dodgy, and I won't go on about the faces. However on the black night for me of the quarters, he did provide a marvelous moment pulling the funny face with Lisa after Brenda's strop off and showed himself a thoroughly good egg. For that alone, I'm pleased he won.

Camilla would have also been a factor in him winning. It would have been fresh in people's minds how she just lost out on the final the previous year, and she and Tom was also helped by well timed commentary in papers to vote Tom to counteract the perceived favouritism. As for Rachel she didn't excite me much unfortunately except the AT, and it was that AT which pushed me to dial for her to get into the final two. I thought that alone, merited her that place ahead of Lisa.

I'm tempted to say that I don't buy the women vote for good looking blokes argument but it probably does have an influence but just not as much as you'd think - being cute only got Mark Foster and Roger Black so far - anyone else you can think of who's cute then it has to be backed up by some talent and that includes the gentleman whose nerves got the better of him.

And in the final reckoning, the tally is remarkably even - with 2 women and 2 men winning in the pre-dance off era and one of each winning post-dance off.

It's a bias, not an absolute. It makes it harder for women to win, not impossible. An absolute or near absolute lack of male talent (Jill, Natasha) or a fortuitous sprinkling of meltdowns and lucky semi-final table placings (Alesha, Rachel if Strictly 6 had gone strictly by the book) can still result in a female winner.

And there will always be people and instances that buck the trend of general public opinion. But the overall bias remains, just like the bias against older competitors, or towards cricketers, or more towards strong Latin dancers than strong Ballroom dancers, or any of the other ways the Strictly vote runs.

A lot of people who watched series two would query that Aled might have been competition had he made the final.

I think it's a big factor. As long as an attractive male celeb isn't awful, then women will vote for him. You only have to look at how much support Matt has in the series 1-6 elimination thread on here. Obviously there have been exceptions, but this is generally the rule. To combat this, female celebs have to promote themselves more and be very vocal (like Alesha was). If they simply concentrate on their dancing, then they don't do very well.

It's a possibility - Aled was more or less the only man in the entirity of the first 2 series with any dance talent whatsoever and the vote was erratic that year (Julian going from top in the semi to bottom in the final). I still think Jill would have pulled it out though.

He didn't win the competition though did he? I think that's a combination of having a supporters who are quite dedicated to voting on the thread and know how to play the system - its not the same as the voting public. There are lots of people who ARE awful who progress too far in the competition - a lot of them aren't hearthrob material or at least conventially attractive and some are women (aka Kate Garroway, Fiona Phillips and I would argue Jan Ravens whom I would have cheerfully kicked off the previous two weeks before she went and wouldn't have been gutted if she'd gone in the first week).

Matt still got further than he should have IMO. Kate and Fiona were kept in for comedy value (and to annoy the judges!)

Rachel Stevens provides a very clear recent illustration of the factors involved:
great dancer
bland
partnered with Vinthenth (one of the love-him-or-loathe-him pros)

Put those in a melting pot and the majority view was .... meh.

Also you can be TOO good at the actual dancing. Better to make a pr@t of yourself early on and then make a deal of progress - Goughie-boy, for example.

First of all, before we start another year of flaming, abuse and raised blood pressure - IT IS ONLY A TV SHOW.....

Interestingly, I thought Rachel made more progress than Tom. She started off the competition quietly, but came out of her shell during the Rhumba and was far from being a bland performer after that.

Tom was always quite showy with regards to the performance side of things, but made errors even in the later stages (didn't he stumble in his Foxtrot in the semis?). It was the show dance that won it for him. And a superb show dance it was too.

It was a superb show dance, and I'm pleased for him and Camilla it was - but I don't think it was the deciding factor in his win.

From what we know of prevoius finals, and the fact the phone lines don't have that much time left open after the Show Dance, I would hazzard a guess he could have come out and done the End of the Pier Muppet Dance and still won.

The foxtrot stumble was in the final. And my memory of the botch-job scoring system isn't great, but I think he must have been ahead of both Lisa and Rachel in the public vote when Lisa was eliminated, before the showdance happened. Same as Darren in series 3.

But whom would you have rather seen progress Gethin who is also cute or Leticia who got voted through in VW/Salsa week on a sympathy vote?

The voting public are not monolithic as the differing facts of Rachel in the competition and on tour prove and in the only parallel I have to work with when they vote on personalities like in Big Brother they don't always vote for cute males in fact most BB winners aren't the male hearthrob - women DO for other women in BB there have been female winners but they vote for the type of woman they can see themselves going for a night on the town with - this fits with the victories of Jill and Alesha and why someone like Claire King lasted longer than her dancing perhaps entitled her to but why Gaby didn't thrive. Alesha expressed surprise she got through to the final ahead of two attractive males and Zoe she got through to the final ahead of one (James Martin) so to say women only vote for male hotties is wrong. It also doesn't explain the early baths for Spoony and Ray Fearon in series four unless you bring racism into play which is a whole other issue and if you think it plays a part doesn't explain the victories of Alesha or Ramps. The supposed anti-female bias doesn't explain either the strong support for Christine and Jodie last year or why Georgina, Jan and Claire lasted longer than their abilities dictated in series four.

By your statement the anti-judge vote comes into play and the comedy value vote so you are in fact acknowedging their influence. I think that people vote or don't vote for someone for a whole variety of reasons and BB proved that negative voting produces different patterns than positive - i.e marmite personalities fare better when you have to vote positively i.e to retain someone and wallpaper contestants fare better under a negative voting system i.e voting to kick someone out - you see in BB that a wallpaper candidate will often last when people vote other people out because they vote for people to be evicted whom miff them off more but they very rarely win as mostly there are people whom the public like more than get the votes when the voting turns positive in the final week (i.e people vote for whom they like to win). Ironically Gethin's looks may have helped in early series five when he was mid-table as people had a reason to vote him back in significant numbers when not enough people cared enough to extend the courtesy to Penny and Gaby. I suppose what I'm saying in a long winded way is that you don't have to be particularly disliked by the public not to get their vote under a positive voting system like the one Strictly operates under - whether that is because people don't particularly like you, aren't that impressed by your dancing or you just didn't register enough on their radar is something that varies from person to person.

Zoe was top of the leaderboard the week James went out, and he was at the bottom (and she still ended up in the bottom 2). She didn't have to beat him in the public vote to get past him. Likewise Alesha and Gethin. Gethin could have beaten Alesha (and indeed everyone else) by millions of votes every week and still gone home.

(I don't agree with placing the onus of sexist voting with women though. I do find it kind of hilariously ironic when some people get all "STUPID ****ING WOMEN BEING SO SEXIST AND STUPID!" during the series)

Dont forget how voting changed!!

The first 5 series had a charity element in the voting system and this led a number of people to "multiple vote" ALL week - and also led to some stunning phone bills - the largest I heard was £800!!!

Now you can only vote on the evening.

So its difficult to extrapolate voting patterns based on popularity or talent THAT easily.

JJ

I actually voted for Rachel AND Tom to ensure Lisa got voted off first when she was I was then not bothered who won UNTIL I saw Tom's showdance then I voted for Tom - I don't labour under the delusion that everyone is like me but I can't be the only person who had that pattern of voting. I suppose the short version is that the showdance might have been a factor or might not rather like in series three - whereas I don't think it made a blind bit of difference in series four and five (series five Alesha would have had to have fallen over or had a meltdown similar to her rival's in the quarter final NOT to win).

I've already admitted that it isn't the only factor; of course there are other reasons why people vote. I do think it's significant though.

I am so glad I don't vote, I wouldn't know whether to class myself as a stupid f****ing sexist woman, a jelus hatah or someone who votes to annoy the judges . Not being a professional dancer/judge my only criteria for voting would be those performances that make me smile, sometimes it's one or two per show, sometimes none and it's not always the most accomplished performance.

PLUS if I don't just take to someone I don't vote for them. They could be Fred Astaire meets Michael Jackson but I also have to like them.

Not that I 'phone in. I did when it was partly for charideeeee - but no longer.

I love your post it made me laugh .....so that would have got a vote from me.......



I SO agree they could be the best dancer the world has ever seen if I dont take to them they dont get my vote. Unfortunately it does work the other way sometimes.......if they are terrible (but really trying) and they make me laugh then they might get a vote but only in the early weeks.

Why would you vote for someone to stay in just to have to hear more of their "amazing" ruddy boring bleedin' soppy yakking?????

Coz the actual dancing only takes a few minutes. In the later stages we get more of the dreaded J-word. Then we have to listen to them blarting on. So they have to have more to offer than tears or blandity (not a real word, I know...)

We've had the j-word already this year so that's one box ticked off!

If it were purely a dance contest then that's what would happen. They would toddle down the stairs, dance and leave the floor by the fire exit.

There would be no interview in the Tess Pit (some may say hurrah but I couldn't possilbly comment ), there would be no It Takes Two, there would be no training videos, no teary eyed children/grannies, no interviews from a Hospital trolley after a particularly nasty blister attack ... nothing ... just the dancing. In fact, may be not even celebrities (actually, this year could be a trial run for that )