Why is it that the judges always insist on voting for the acts they mentor even though they know sometimes that the other singer is clearly better?

I realise they mentor that act but what difference does it make cos it's Simon Cowell's record lable that benefits at the end of the day not the judges surely? Do they get a cut out of the winning act or something or do they get paid more money for the more acts they have? I only ask cos it makes the whole judging process a complete joke.

I thought the whole idea about having a panal of judges is to make it a fair and impartial judgement on someones performance but when you have judges voting for their own acts then it's not fair. It's a totally biased decision. How can you call them judges in that case. It's just a case of lets praise out own acts and slag off everybody elses. Any idiot can do that. Doesn't mean your qualified to be a judge does it?

I don't believe the mentors should be allowed to vote for their own acts. I'm not saying they should be made to vote for anyone elses but maybe when it comes down to the final decision then they should be left out of the decision cos it's completely biased and predictable. Why can't they be honest and just vote for the one they know is the best singer or even better, just let the public decide.

I think it's because of loyalty, and if you voted your own act out but they stayed in, it'd make it really awkward to work with them.

Well that makes the whole judging process one sided then and it's not a true, fair judgement which is what makes the whole process unfair and a total joke. Maybe then they need to have separate judges to the people who mentor them. Either that or just ban them from voting for their own acts and let the others decide. That way perhaps Simon and Louis will stop all this childish bickering between them about each other's acts and actually come up with something constructive to say.

Or even better, just let the public vote decide. After all, it's the public who buy and listen to the music so surely the public vote is more important.

They don't have to, they're just loyal. I remember Simon voting against his own act a few years ago, The Conway Sisters i think it was. I think that's the only time it's happened though.

You're right. It isn't fair and it is stupid to have mentors who are also judges in a competition about singing.

However, it's an entertainment show. How it is at the moment is very entertaining, imo.

Simon is the only one ever to break that mould, with the Conway sisters.

It is one of the points I have been trying hard to make re the Lucie/Twins row. If the judges remit was to save the weaker act, and it was clear that was what is supposed to happen (as a lot of people keep bleating on that it is) then J &E would have gone home 4-0.

But its NOT. The judges mentor they don't just judge. So, with the exception of Simon that one time, any judge with an act in the bottom 2 saves that act. So to moan that it is then the job of the other judges to save the stronger singer, loses its impact.

But at the end of the day it doesnt matter - because its light entertainment. Simon is playing the villain and its all great fun.

Im pretty sure it happened several times in the early shows, they were a lot more honest back then. It was more about the singers than the judges ego.

In series 1 Louis voted for his own act, 2 To Go.

However, after the Maria Lawson/Conway Sisters fiasco, the judges seemed to become a lot more intent on their own acts staying in.

See above, Louis voted 2 To Go in series 2 and while i can't remember who, im sure it happened a third time.

Well thats good then - but Louis must know the Twins are weak, probably weaker than any of his other acts he has voted off if thats so (I can't remember, so I will assume you are correct) and yet he voted to keep them in.

So, as I keep saying, it will always depend on how the judge feels at the time and what their motives are in their own head surely?

I think Conway Sisters is the only time an act voted against their own.

That's when Simon used to make the right decisions... sadly he's lost that ability now.

It was only because two of his acts were up and so he had to choose between his own acts. 2 to Go were up against Voices with Soul.
He had to do it again when G4 were in the bottom 2 with Voices with Soul and he had to vote Voices with Soul off.

Oh right, i didn't watch much of series 1, it was my first year of uni so i was always out killing my liver, lol.

It's a shame it doesn't happen more often. If the judges were honest it would happen every week but i guess loyalty is important. I remember when Simon voted out the Conway Sisters, they said something like "Louis has been more of a mentor to us than Simon."

The Conway Sisters had fallen out with Simon and were technically mentoring themselves by that point. Plus I think Simon wanted to put them out of their misery because if he hadn't then Louis would have saved them again and the backlash against them would have been even stronger.

It's down to loyalty really, and possibly because inside they all would obviously want their acts to win, but mainly because they feel they should stand by the side of their acts since they may feel responsible for putting them there (bottom 2)

Good post OP - they don't have to vote for them but it honestly comes down to a lack of balls - it takes guts to make the right call instead of pandering to the whims and expectations of the great unwashed. People can criticise Simon all they want, but he was speaking the truth when he said Jedward would be better to watch again than Lucie.

I think it is loyalty on two levels:

1. Loyalty to their act in the Bottom 2 especially in case that act was saved either by (a) other judges, or (b) by the public vote in a deadlock situation .... it would make it very awkward for that judge/mentor to work with the act they had voted against.

2. Loyalty to all their acts -- how would their other acts feel if they saw that their mentor had voted against one of their own acts? That would breed distrust in the other artists that the judge was mentoring.

However, I do think the format totally suits Simon "Mr Calculating" Cowell because there is so much tactical voting involved + he can usually swing it back to a public vote if he wants.

1. If he knows the public vote is against the act he wants to save he makes sure that either Dannii or Cheryl backs him up and votes his way.

2. If he knows the public vote is the direction he wants the show to go in, he manipulates a "deadlock" situation to produce the same result.

Therefore, the idea that "it all comes down to the public vote" is nonsense -- Simon manipulates it, either between the jduge's vote or into a deadlock situation when it suits him.


My suggested improvements
====================
1. The judges should definitely NOT also be mentors -- this would be one of the best changes they could make to the show. (In Strictly Come Dancing, Pop Idol, American Idol and most other reality/talent shows the judges are NOT mentors.)

2. It should come down *entirely* to the public vote and no more manipulation of judges votes vs deadlock/public vote -- just one public vote and that would be it.

Always preferred Pop Idol format, which went across the pond to AI. None of this self indulgent point scoring bickering.