It always frustrates me how all ITV and Channel 4 reality shows announce what the voting percentages were for the series when the shows are over yet the BBC continues not to show the ones for SCD

What have the got to hide?

What possible reason could they have for not showing the percentages after the series is over (Could be that Chris was so far ahead every week the show was over as contest after week 1 )

Surely in this moderns age as someone who has voted in this show we have a right to know what the scores were very week?

Agree or Disagree?

If you all agree should be start a campaign with our local MP's or something to get these results into the public domain

The BBC say that the FOI Act doesn't apply to the Strictly results as it's "commercially sensitive" - and that's why even after people have put FOI requests in that they haven't had to reveal anything. Therefore, I'd wager starting a campaign with your MP will do absolutely nothing - even if they care enough to take it up.

Personally, I couldn't care less - what would we learn of any interest?

We know Chris has probably topped most of the votes but I'd be interested to see how Craig Kelly & Joe Calzaghe were doing in the early weeks.

I personally think they wouldnt do it, because it would show how much influence the judges actually have in the competition. For all we know, the top 5 most popular contestants could all be long gone, because of the 50/50 scoring system, and the 3 we end up with could be the least popular. (I know that isnt the case, but you get what im trying to say)

Or cases where a top-popularity celeb suddenly tumbles into the bottom two. Tuffers, Ali and Jade all suddenly tumbled down from 3rd place after dancing first in a two hour show for instance.

Or the judges voting off a vastly more popular contestant (letting a 0.25% of vote celeb stay in over someone who received 30% for instance)

This is exactly why they dont do it in my opinion. Last year, Heather Small was clearly getting no votes, but kept getting saved, and then the same with Lisa later on.

I think without a dance off, it'd have been Tom, Austin and Christine in the final three..

Yes I think I remember from last year people saying they don't have to do it but don't you think they should do it and if they don't they should give us a good reason why there show is different from all the rest

After all it still relies heavily on phone votes like the rest

Which would not have been terrible imho.

I voted for Heather small and Lisa Snowdon (Who should have won!)

John Sergeant...

I know what you mean...but it does`t seem to bother Simon Cowell.That said the judges on the XF know for a fact their voting to eliminate one of two contestants with the lowest vote....As you say, for all we know the highlighted quote from your post might have occurred on countless occasions.....If the BBC just followed the format of the XF and ditched the judges veto when were down to the final 5 or 6 then there`d be less potential for embarrassment as the judges could`t be seen to have eliminated the public's favourite over a contestant with more ability but less votes....This scenario is less of an issue during the early stages of the competition as the judges score carries more weight but as the numbers decrease the public vote is king and the contestants score "almost" has no influence as to whether they find themselves in the bottom two or not.

I think the X Factors judge save is alright though, because the contestants are the two least popular. With Strictly, its possible for those who are right up the top with the public to be in the bottom two and go home. The judges vote takes precidence in Strictly, but in XF, the public decides who they like, and the judges pick off the stragglers.

Yes, the judges get a say TWICE in Strictly. It should be scoring or dance off imo, not both.

Think most of you already sussed the reason. It would cause a lot of complaints. They let the public vote take precedence when you get down to 3 couples, but in earlier weeks the nature of the show means there will be lots of times where the person who survives the DO was way behind the person who goes out on the public vote. Even though most people are aware that the DO is added to the show to raise some dancing credibility for the later stages, if you actually gave them the numbers and show how often someone more popular with the public on any given week went out, it would be reminding them of something they tacitly accept (the judges are given more than 50% of the power in earlier weeks) and they might not accept it so tacitly any more.

The Dance off should be scrapped at about the final 5-6. The whole purpose of the dance off is to save better dancers, but that really should end at some point. Last year is a far better example than this year - in the early weeks, it served a good purpose - Rachel was saved in about the seventh week, which was far to early for her, and then she really stepped it up, but by the time she was in the dance off for the second time, it was clear that she and Lisa, as good as they were (Rachel was excellent in particular) werent that popular as Christine and Austin who they beat. If it wasnt for the whole 3-3-1 thing, the last two weeks would have been as dull as this years final, because it was obvious Tom had it in the bag. The final was over as soon as Lisa left, because the only thing up for grabs was second place.

I don't think this would cause complaints.We all know how the show works and how the judges vote then the public then the judges again

All I want is to see how much all the contestants were getting each week out of mild curiosity.Nothing else

In your case, that might be true. In mine, it also is. We're perfectly aware of how the show works and so is almost everybody else. But even if you're aware of something, not actually having the direct evidence of it put there smack in your face, somehow makes for less problems. Given the raw numbers, I guarantee you a lot of people who are tacitly happy enough to accept the system suddenly will find they're not so happy about it any more.

I thought I remembered reading at the start of the series in the rules explanation, that they were going to reveal the public votes at a late stage of the program, but on looking for it now, I dont find it.

Anyone else recall having seen something to that effect?

I think also the commercial channels are at liberty to court interest and publicity (and hence viewers) by using a bit more controversy than Auntie Beeb, which needs to stay the right side of prioritising licence payers. For the judges to be seen to be regularly throwing out the PAYING public's preferred competitors is all a bit too erk. One thing I think that it's implicit. Another altogether to publish the figures.

I know it all smells like um... cat's wee. But that's the general thrust behind it, I suspect.

I agree with this. It would look really bad if popular contestants were going home every week and the least popular were making the final, with the judges help of course. The 50/50 scoring system allows the judges to rig the votes to try and save their favourites by overmarking. This would all be exposed if the results were published. There would most likely be a backlash from the public and a demand for the removal of the dance off. And maybe even the judges vote.

As well as the fact that the judges are saving the less popular contestants earlier on (because they are usually better dancers) & this may cause controversy I think there is another reason too that no one else has seemd to aknowledge.
The celeb's imho are more well known & "current" than IACGMOOH (except for maybe KP this year who threw a curve ball into the soup for her own reasons) & CBB. The Beeb don't want to upset them & cause diva strops by publishing their popularity contest votes. They may have problems getting such high profile peeps if the potential contestants realise they may be shown up as coming very low in the voting no matter how good their dancing & how hard they work.
Obviously in XF the powers that be don't care as the contestants are allegedly Jo/e Blogs who have come from nowhere, they certainly shut up & put up as it's their chance to be famous; (even if only for only slightly longer than five minutes). It seems they will allow themselves to be treated any which way Simon wants in the hope they could be the next Leona & not Steve!
I expect the Beeb have to treat their "cast" with a lot more respect & deference.

Not to mention the field-day the anti-BBC sections of the press would have with it. From the BBC point of view, why give them the gun and load the bullets yourself?

I thought you already knew

About the only thing I can think of that they might want to hide would be an embarrassingly small number of votes compared to the estimated viewing figures.

I am not really sure where the 'commercially sensitive' argument the BBC uses really comes in. I suspect what they really mean is that the higher ups involved with the show will somehow lose face if the figures are revealed.


I don't know about a 'right', but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to be told the results of a vote. Perhaps JS would like to take the lead with this argument, as I seem to recall he equated SCD voting to a General Election.

Good points. I doubt they featured greatly in the original reasoning not to release (which I'd guess were protection of format from unnecessary complaints), but I could well see the agents of celebs who do appear lobbying along those lines for the figures not to be released, should they consider it. Strictly doesn't generally draft in the greatest of fragile celeb egos, but am sure there are some.


Exactly. They'd keep sniping away with it, and it'd just unnecessarily exacerbate audience/judge tensions. Now that finally they appear to have sorted out the need to remove a DO when three couples are left, production ought to have reached an uneasy truce situation with its audience. The audience is prepared to quietly accept the judges are going to probably kick out lots of celebs who do better on the public vote along the way than others they keep, but in the end the audience is pretty certain to get 'someone' it wants to the final, whether the judges like that or not. Even releasing the numbers after a series ends would just IMO have fans of particular celebs going over and over the injustice of big lopsided votes earlier in the series and carrying that resentment about them over in to future series. As it is now, without the numbers to back up their speculation on relative celeb popularities, they might grump and groan a little when their favourite goes out, but they kinda just accept that's the way the cookie crumbles ... and resign themselves that the public should at least ultimately get 'someone' to the final.

The Beeb is a law unto itself. It regards the license tax payers with contempt.