Except the judges don't have an agenda. Their job is to judge a dance contest. If Chris is the worst dancer and they score him last then that is a fair contest. All Chris has to do is come out and dance better than anyone else and they will score him first, although Chris dancing better than anyone else would be miraculous, especially this week doing samba.

That's arguable. (Whether you believe it or not it's still arguable.) It could be argued that the judges "had an agenda" two years ago when Matt was given his maximum waltz score and Gethin went out. The judges may have wanted an Alesha win (not unreasonable) and seen Matt as less competition. Therefore, they may have marked Matt more highly than they would otherwise have done to give him an almost unbeatable dance off dance.

It could be argued that the judges favoured both Rachel and Lisa last year and, therefore, seeing Austin as a threat last year, scored him lower and Lisa higher than they would otherwise have done, thereby giving Lisa a better chance in the dance off.

It could therefore also be argued that the judges are going to try their utmost to prevent an Ali/Ricky dance off this weekend. They may be privvy to certain information and have an idea where votes are going. To prevent the aforementioned scenario, the judges may use their information to arrange the scoring scenario they need to prevent the nightmare Ali/Ricky dance off by placing the more popular contestant first and the less popular contestant second knowing that this placing is certain to keep the more popular of the two out of the dance off and that they can save the less popular one via the dance off.

I don't think I believe a word of what I just typed.

But it can be argued.

What a wonderfully reasoned post!

Reading thorough this thread, I was going to post similar.

The judges apparent favourites have been the better dancers. That's their remit - to vote for the best dancers.

The public vote seems to be a popularity vote - we vote for who entertains us, and who we like as personalities, and that's our remit.

I understand that the way the leaderboard is calculated means that a public favourite can be voted off, but conversely it also means that a judges favourite can be - look at Zoe.

I think it's as fair as it can be without making it exceedingly complicated. It's a contest based on a mixture of popularity AND ability, and I don't think there's a perfect formula for that rather unique type of competition.

Judges in other disciplines do this too. Take gymnastics as an example - if you do a difficult vault with a start value of 10.0, you could make 3 mistakes worth 0.3 reduction each and end up with 9.1.
If someone else made no mistakes in a vault with a start value of 9.0, then the person with the mistakes wins.
(Yes, I know gymnastic scoring has changed, but this is still the crux of it!).

I don't want any fixes so that anyone wins in that way - but .... I really want a 3 couple final.

I don't think getting rid of the dance off at this stage would be a fix for any couple.

I don't believe a word of what you just typed either but it never ceases to amaze me how many people on these boards do

As with X factor the dance off/judges vote should end once you are down to the last 5. If you can't trust the public after two months when can you.

Chris fans talk such a pile of sh*t. You twist yourselves in knots to protect the little guy. He;s a cack dancer. End of.

My, some of Ali's fans are feeling threatened, aren't they?

What was that you were saying about tying yourself in knots?

But that was in the days before the dance off - the current system leaves the public favourite in a far more vulnerable position.

But we don't really know who the public favourite is. I suspect that is confined to a very small number of people. All we know is that Chris is very popular on here, as was Austin last year. This year is fairer as we have five judges and it won't be down to Len. I suggest we all just vote for the couple we want to win and stop trying to anticipate the result. There are only a couple of permutations that would put Chris in the DO if he is at the bottom of the leaderboard and top of the public vote. If he is up against someone who dances better then he deserves to go. There are two aspects to SCD - dance performance and popularity - and it is only a show.

They know that Chris would crush her if it were up to the public vote. She really does desperately need the judges, bless her

You don't actually know that. It's Chris's fans who are worrying about the outcome. I'm prepared to accept whatever happens.

Chris's fans just want the public to decide now we are down to the final 5. What is wrong with democracy vs the Gang of 4 overriding the views of hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Who ever tops the public vote should be exempt from the dance off every week!

I'm not prepared to see the judges manipulate the outcome again - they succeeded with Gethin, almost got rid of Tom (but for some bright spark BBC executives) and will now be able to remove another public favourite irrespective of how the public vote.

That is wrong in my opinion!

The man in the hat gets my vote - he wouldn't need the "help" of the costume department with a hat like that!

I want Dave Arch AND the man in the hat to win. As a couple. I think they are cute and musical and dedicated and try hard.

I think the singers should be voted off tonight. That way we could have a three couple final.

Not the man in the hat though! He is my favourite

Bruce and Alesha could be voted off. I say they do a saaaaaarmba in the DO. Yes?

Absolutely agree!

I think they should just put the final 3 chosen tonight into the final - that's the fairest outcome and would avoid the problems they will encounter next week when Chris wins the public vote and goes out in the dance off.

Next week's public vote should be to decide which 4 out of the 5 judges make it through to the final.

I'm not sure if I've misunderstood you, but Zoe went out in a dance off, didn't she?

Youknow he's posted on here in the past? His username is ncorners