I've read several posts along the lines of: Now it's a 2-couple final, the judges have All The Power.

No understand I. Why does it give them more power? Genuine, no-strings question.

Simple answer:

99% of the Great British Public (god bless em) assume that "VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE NOW!" means this:
[LIST][*]If your favourite receives the most number of votes, they will be safe[/LIST]
Sadly, it doesn't mean that at all

They will only be safe if the OTHER public votes fall in a certain way (and depending on how the judges have scored, obviously)

I view this as blatant fraud by the BBC. They do not make it clear that in certain situations, voting for your favourite is NOT ENOUGH to save them!

They imply all along that "Anyone can be saved", but do not make it clear what that actually MEANS, and in doing so, deceive 99% of the viewing & paying public.

Hope that helps...

Absolutely, it's clear example of the fraudulent and deceptive practices endemic within the morally bankrupt culture which is eating away at our nation's once great corporation.

I intend to communicate my disgust in writing to my MP, the Daily Mail and all over internet message boards, but not necessarily in that order. I'll still be watching on Saturday though, after all we can't let this disgraceful charade go unchecked...

To use my example from another thread:

Judges

Couple A = 3 points
Couple R = 2 points
Couple C = 1 point

Public

Couple C = 50,000,000 votes (3 points)
Couple A = 2 votes (2 points)
Couple R = 1 vote (1 point)

Result = paying public's favourite is in the dance-off.

Public's reaction = Hang on a minute! I thought you said "vote to save your favourite" & "anyone can be saved" !?!?!?

BBC's explanation = ah well, technically, yes - they could have been saved... for example if Couple R had received 2 votes & Couple A had received 1 vote. Sorry about that. But don't forget to tune in for the final!

The judges have most of the power in deciding which two couples reach the final because of the dance off. The only way the voters' favourite can get through if bottom with the judges is if the voters completely reverse the judges' leader board with their votes.

However in the final itself if there are only two couples left, the voters have all the power as in the event of a tie with the combined scores victory goes to the public's favourite.

I believe the OP was talking about getting to final, not actually the final itself. But anyway...


Combined scores? In the final? Since when...? I thought the final was 100% public, and the judges were there just to look ugly?

The simple explanation is tedious, paranoid ravings which ignore inconvenient facts in favour of half-baked conspiracy theorising.

As usual there's more than a whiff of BBC bashing about it...but no doubt a whole range of agenda are in play.

Last year the combined scores counted up until the show dance. After Lisa and Brendan were placed third all that counted was the public vote based on the two show dances.

In a two person final it makes no difference whatsoever how the judges vote though as if the public put the couples in a different order from the judges the public's favourite win.

It is however true that in a three person semi-final the only way the third place couple can avoid the dance off is if the public votes puts the dancers in the opposite order from the judges.

Let's see YOUR explanation then, and feel free to deconstruct mine, pointing out exactly where the mistakes are, and which "inconvenient" facts I've missed?

I've never claimed there's ANY conspiracy, and in a way that makes the whole situation even worse! This could all happen without the judges or the BBC having any knowledge of it whatsover. It doesn't have to pre-planned. There doesn't have to be a determined "Ali v Ricky final" agenda, or anything like that. It could all happen (very easily) by accident.

Or perhaps you're just a bit thick, and don't really grasp the maths behind all of this? I suspect so... but if you DO, then please - explain it & prove me wrong. Oh, but let me guess - you can't be bothered to enter into futile debate with the "conspiracy theorists"??? How convenient...

I don't think there's any particular conspiracy but a dance off with only 3 couples remaining does give the judges far more control over the outcome than when there are 4 or 5 couples left.

I think it would be prudent this year to scrap the dance off for the semi but I doubt it would happen.

No...let's see you address the point in the OP i.e.


Given that a) it hasn't been confirmed to my knowledge that it's a two-couple final and b) the judges quite clearly don't have all the power even if it is, I don't think any further explanation on my part is necessary...irrespective of how much you try to patronise me.

Sure. Here goes:

Hi OP! I think the posts you're referring to are not about the final itself, but the process of actually GETTING TO the final, or rather - the public having a say in who gets to the final (and therefore who wins).

I think most people don't realise at this stage that a couple can receive 99% of the public vote, yet still not reach the final. They are understandly under the false impression that "vote to save your favourite" implies that enough votes will save them. It won't necessarily do so.

Rupert Romarin seems to think this is a "conspiracy theory" despite the fact it could happen with zero intention from the BBC or the judges.

Funny old world, init? :yawn:

Jesus saves

But Len moves in mysterious ways.

Dexribing it as "blatant fraud" kind of gives the impression that you think it's a conspiracy theory yes. Unless you meant "fraudslaughter", the well known crime of accidental fraud.

No, I'm not claiming it's fraud in so much as they're doing it deliberately in order to ensure a certain couple win, or reach the final, or whatever.

I'm saying it's fraud to invite people to phone in (and pay money) claiming "your couple can be saved", without explaining what this actually means. The implication is this:

YOUR COUPLE CAN BE SAVED IF ENOUGH PEOPLE VOTE FOR THEM

In certain situations, this is simply not true, and as such - I believe the vast majority of people are being deceived.

Aw, and I thought you were going to do the old "But Len scores on the rebound" joke. haven't heard that for years.

In response to the OP, a two couple final doesn't give the judges any more power in the final itself but it does give them more power as to the decision of the final two.

In an ordinary year, there would be four couples in the semi final which would include a dance off. Then, after the semi final, with three couples remaining, there is no dance off so the couple who is most popular with the public is guaranteed a place in the final two.

In an two couple final, the semi final is reduced to three couples but there is still a dance off. Therefore, it is possible for the judges to prevent the popular choice from reaching the final two (depending on voting) which is not the case if there are three couples in the final.

Thank you, very clear and I have now learned something new.

That's slightly better...but you should leave my twin brother out of this.

He hates Strictly.

Midflight,

Winning the phone vote is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the bottom couple to be saved in the latter stages. Thus, whilst voting won't save your faves, not voting for them will see them in the DO.

If anyone is confused by Tess saying "Vote to save your favourites" then they don't deserve sympathy, they deserve to be locked up indefinitely for their own good. The basic principle can be demonstrated with the three couple, only one definitely saved scenario. There are only 6 possible outcomes, and it's not hard to determine that the bottom couple needs to win the phone vote and have other results go their way to avoid the DO. If the expectation is that the population as a whole can't work this out then there is really no hope for the country.

The obvious exception to this was in last year's semi when Tom could not be saved, irrespective of how anyone voted, and thus Tess urging people to vote to save their favourite was on decidedly dodgy ground. Even then, it took about 30 seconds to run through the options and conclude Tom was doomed.

The combination of stupidity and taking it all too seriously is very dangerous, IMHO.

What so in the example where the scores are reversed, all 3 would be in the dance off surely?

In what way does the phrase 'vote to save your favourite' imply that they will be saved? I'm sure that many people voted for Natalie this weekend, she was not saved.

The point is that it is statistically possible for anybody to be saved by the public vote, whether they're first or last on the judges leaderboard. After that, it does depend on how the voting for all contestants works out as to whether the most popular with the public actually is saved. Nowhere does it guarantee that they will be.

No. Public vote takes precedence in the case of a tie, so the second and third favourites in the public vote would be in the dance-off.

No, if scores are tied after judging and the public vote, then it is decided by who of the tied competitors has polled the highest public vote. So if the scores were reversed - say the judges voted A, R, C and the public C, R, A - all three couples would have 4 points, in which case the two couples with the lowest public vote (couples A & R in this example) would be in the dance off. Couple C, the public's favourite, would not.

Thanks, everyone, for all the explanations, which I'll keep re-reading until I get it. My brain, not your explanations.

I Had taken it that the posts I'd read on other threads that the judges would have more power on which of 2 wins in a 2 couple final, than on which of 3 wins in a 3 couple final.

but then when I read the ABCCBA explanation for weekly shows, I get cross!

And thousands of people still voted anyway; enough to make him top the vote when it was announced the following week. I guess there are lots of people who need to be locked up for their own protection...