Where is the evidence that proves that nobody would watch SCD without a public vote as presumably most people who watch do not vote especially in the early stages? I know people often cite Come Dancing as the answer to this but it cannot be compared as it did not feature celebs.
For me I would enjoy the show more without the public vote or if the voters could only vote to keep 1 couple of the bottom 2 in the competiton. To say it would be obvious from the start who the winner would be is not necessarily correct because most of the celebs do improve.
Does anyone know the percentage of viewers that vote, I'm sure it's a lot higher in the final but it still probably isn't the majority of viewers.

As far as I'm concerned, the public vote isn't necessary - but I suspect that without direct viewer involvement the rating would drop and the show would be pulled. For a lot of people that I know it adds to the drama of the show.

Possibly but the Apprentice manages to get viewers without one - not sure of the audience numbers or if they would be watching in the same SCD slots. The Apprentice manages to get its best candidates to the last 4 and usually manages to keep a good story going too. They have more people to cast from though probably. Even Masterchef manages to get more story to the end and a more competitive final without the public vote.

You could just have a public vote in the final and always make sure you had 3 choices or you could change who is at risk each week so that just the weakest dancers can go and the public gets some blood each week. As it is they will have more and more difficulty getting anyone female or who isn't entertaining in a comic sense to the end and the dancing will become less important as the series goes on. I don't think they have the nerve though to do anything and will ride with it and produce carry on dancing if they can still get away with it.

Even this year they could have had a competitive final by just making sure three people got there and they even flunked that so I don't see them tackling the bigger issues.

No vote=No show....Countless posts have stated the reality that SCD is not purely a dancing competition...If it was just about the technicalities of dancing then it would`t be the most successful TV franchise in the world and it certainly would`t be on our screens.......Just think Come Dancing...it died a slow pitiful death.....It`s resurrection as SCD was in part due to the viewer being able to have their say via the public vote.

How do you know this? As the previous poster said The Apprentice and Masterchef are very popular without public vote and it cannot be compared to Come Dancing as there are celebs in it which always attracts a large audience. I know it's not just a dance competition but the people who know who they are voting for before the show begins presumably think it is just a personality competition. If only a small minority of viewers vote how is it so obvious that the show would end without them?

Yes, but Masterchef and The Apprentice aren't in the BBC1 primetime Saturday evening/night slot.

No one can know for sure, but I'd hazzard a guess that without the public vote Strictly would find itself on one night in the week, with possibly an ITT straight in a similar manner to The Apprentice/You're Fired or bopping round the early evening BBC2 time slots like Masterchef.

Well no one can know for sure (either way), but I would suggest that it is the vagaries of the public vote which help build up the suspense and attract interest.

What I don't understand is why take a successful formula and then pull it apart? I know that we don't want the show to become stale but there have been so many changes made to Strictly in recent series which seem to have been detrimental. It does make me wonder how well the show would be doing if producers had just left the show in its original format. Well I guess we'll never know.

I think that people would feel less inclined to watch the show if there wasn't a public vote. It allows the viewers to become involved in the show, it ultimately gives the public a final say in the outcome of the show. Also, with all the bitchiness over judges favouring certain celebs, it would create more of an uproar as viewers can keep their favourites in even if they score low.

Didn't watch the first 2 series so don't really know what the original format was but judging by the series I have seen it is the media interest which seems to have been the biggest change along with the PR etc. There were apparently a lot of people voting for JS who had never watched any SCD at all, they just wanted to get on the bandwagon of irritating the judges. I know it is supposedly "light entertainment" but how "light" will it go?

I think they should keep the phone vote because the money goes to charity. No phone vote is essential for programmes like Britain's and America's Next Top Model because we'd actually by toying with their lives, they want to get real careers. For SCD celebs it could just be a bonus that they go further with dance.

It doesn't anymore, unfortunately.

So because your fav didn't win you want to stop people from voting for theirs - petulant much! I don't always agree with whom the public vote saves but I don't always agree with whom the judges say are brilliant too - I felt Lisa last year was extremely over-rated. I think people know if a dance entertains them on Masterchef they can't taste the dishes for themselves.

The Apprentice eliminations work on a different set of rules.

The person going will come from the losing team - so the entire team have an incentive to do well in the task.

The losing project manager chooses which two team members come back with him into the firing line - the PM needs to choose the two who contributed most to the loss correctly or else they will most definitely go themselves.

Siralan chooses which of the three goes having taken the advice of his wingers.

There is no "judging" involved in the show - its a staright win or lose result and the losing team self selects the candidates for the chop and AMS chooses from the group put forward, so there is no need for a vote - added to which - the Apprentice will have just finished filming the 2010 series round about now (if there is one which was in doubt at one time due to AMS political commitments next year) so we couldn't vote on the outcome anyway.

Masterchef I don't usually watch - but the episodes I have seen make me wonder what qualifications Greg Wallace has to be a judge.... I understand the professional chefs judging - but all Wallace does is repeat what they say......

I'd also enjoy the show more without the public vote, but I don't think the powers that be would have the courage to change that aspect now.

Kj

There would be no suspense if the public vote was removed. And the viewers wouldn't feel as involved in the show.

I reckon it would be an absolute disaster (god I can't type that word without hearing it the way Craig would say it in my head).

My question had nothing to do with whether my favourite won or not, I just wondered why people were so sure that without the public vote it would be the end of SCD. My favourite was Ricky but it doesn't bother me that cola won as he made the final and was the best dancer so in my opinion he won anyway. I would have been upset had he have gone out in the semis even though I had placed a bet on Ali at the beginning but preferred to see a better dancer in the final that win my bet. I am happy for the judges to decide the winners as they all have strengths and weaknesses which balance each other out but on the whole know what they are talking about. I wish there was more coverage of the dances and explanations from the judges of exactly what they are looking for rather than a load of twaddle like interviewing relatives but on the whole I think SCD is very well done but would be improved if there wasn't a public vote.
And there wasn't any suspense, we all knew the outcome a few weeks ago.

I beg to differ. Going into the final, Ricky was favourite to win at the bookies. But his odds changed during the course of the show.

It wasn't a foregone conclusion by any means.

Also, when I talk about drama and suspense, I don't just mean during the final. I'm talking about throughout the series. It would all be so predictable if only the judges had a say. And why would older and less able celebs even bother taking part? They'd just be there to make up the numbers.

I think what's so appealing about the current format is that the public feel like they have a voice. They want to participate in the outcome of the show.

Two things would bother me about judges voting only - firstly, the above; there'd be very few people under 25 taking part (who wants to set themselves up to be purely cannon fodder?) & for me the show would lose a great deal of its appeal because of it. I like the spread of ages/shapes/sizes that the cram into the show & I love the very basic idea that a pro dancer takes someone with no training a sees what they can do with them.

Secondly, the judges voting can be wildy inconsistent & I don't 'trust' those opinions any more than anyone elses.

I think this is my first post in the Strictly forum, but I was browsing and this thread caught my eye. I speak as a casual viewer, who doesn't know about the technicalities and rules of dancing competitions.

I think if the voting was scrapped on Strictly it would completely change the nature of the programme and alienate the vast majority of the viewers, such as myself. I also think it would no longer justify holding the prime time family entertainment slot on Saturday evening.
In effect it would become more little more than a sporting competition, say like pro-celebrity golf, appealing only to a niche audience of dance enthusiasts.

Same here!
Also if it was down to the judges vote (in the finale) Lisa Snowdon would have won last year and Zoe Ball/Emma bunton would have won their respecitive series!
Considering they all came third in a 3 person finale it really would have been something most the viewers wouldnt have wanted. As IMO the judges dont always get it right...
For me shows like DOI, the x factor and SCD NEED a public vote to be sucessful partly because of the live element to them.

Esther Rantzen was waxing lyrical over SCD in the DM. She thought the prof dancer's exhibitions could be seen as boring () and thought the public vote essential reminding us that Come Dancing was taken off screens years ago.

Come Dancing was nothing like SCD!!! It was ridiculous of her to compare the two shows. I always liked watching Come Dancing - despite the fact that I abandoned any thought of learning ballroom dancing years before (I can waltz - just about).

All the public vote does is encourage SCD to descend into farce - with dreadful dancers remaining in the competition and good ones leaving. I find this intensely irritating and it spoilts the programme.

Well, I supposed the 8-10 million viewers disagreed with you somewhat. I don't think voting spoils the programme, quite the contrary, without the voting, Strictly would NOT have captured so much attention for the past five/six years since its genesis.

A farce suggests that viewers are mocking the show - not doing what they are supposed to do.

And yet I've never heard Tess ask us to vote for the 'best dancer' but for our 'favourites' and that's what we do.

You've decided what criteria the rest of us should be using to determine who our favourites are.

To be honest, I would prefer a system which I've read before on the boards where the top however many couples with the judges are safe and the bottom however many battle it out for the public vote for the first... half, maybe of the series.

I think getting rid of the public vote in its entirity would alienate some viewers (not me personally - I don't vote unless I see very good reason to). Also, the judges themselves are not infallible, so I'm not sure we'd have many happy viewers at all...

But do you want randomness? There would be suspense
who went even with no minority of people voting because it would depend how everyone did and you could have a dance off too. The dancing would become more important. There wasn't much suspense either for much of this series once we got to the dance off most weeks. The one week there was a close result and Zoe going then proved to be a calamity for the show later on.

The only other suspense is that anyone could go however good they are - but its far from clear that thats something anyone should want or that the show can survive the biases in the voting . You might as well have a random number generator, add that to the marks and drop one contestant through a trap door as they stand there every week. Some people would find that very entertaining.

You could of course let the public continue to have a vote if you think the old desire to decide who gets hung in the weekly execution is that strong. You just make sure they can't ruin the show by voting all the best dancers off by having a vote to save one of the three worst performers each week.