In my opinion, it would be a lot better if the public voted for who they wanted to keep in, rather than who they want to get rid of. This way, when the 6 privates were up for eviction a few weeks ago, I think Shell or Stu would have almost definetely gone.

It happens every year that a couple of people with very few fans get to the final 4, and come 4th and 3rd, when the bigger characters are all evicted earlier on.

This would stop all the boring people who haven't done anything (Shell and Stu) getting to the final - then people like Ahmed and Victor could have still been there.

Thoughts?

That might work, but I think people are more keen to vote for people they dislike than people they like. That sounded better when I thought of it, hope it makes sense.

I bang on about this so much I bore myself

Either...

a) Put them all up for eviction. Positive voting, and the two with the fewest votes are put to a house vote to decide who goes. It'll do away with the nomination talk as well.

or

b) Put four housemates up for eviction each week, then you could vote for who you wanted to stay. It wouldn't work with two housemates.


Negtive voting in a multiple eviction sucks.

I really am all for positive voting in future BB's as we do tend to lose the best characters as they have as many people dislike them as like them. I agree Stuart or Shell would have gone when there was 6 of them up that time.

Victor went last week as he was the most annoying to some .. yet in polls he was third favourite to win. Same for Michelle this week. Neither of them would have gone / be going if we were voting for who we want to win.

Unless this changes we will be left with the likes of Steph, Cameron, Shell, Dan and Stuart in next years final as well

Aye, I'm all for a change.

Next year: Stick with the evil thing, but bring in something that will keep the best characters in the house

NO, subject been done to death, end of.

Economics. If 2 people are up for eviction under the current system, then you vote for the one you don't like to be evicted. If however there are more than 2 up for eviction, you need to vote for ALL the others to effectively give a positive vote to your favourite. This means the phone company makes a mint - and Endemol are happy

As Stuart would say: "Awesome!"

I was thinking of starting the very same topic when I just switched my computer on.

If you still have nominations, it would only make a difference when there are three or more up, but of course that is when the "louder" contestants are at greater risk, because their supporters divide between the other two to try to save them.

Taking this week as an example, Michelle is favourite to go, yet in a positive vote I think she would probably be third after Nadia and Dan.

Not quite. Presumably you think we should have negative voting in the final, then. Who DON'T you want to win? Let's make absolutely sure that anyone who doesn't deserve to win doesn't, and at the end we'll be left with a worthy winner.

You *can* see what's wrong with that, can't you?

I've got an idea. Let's introduce it in a general election! Who DON'T you want to represent you. The ones with the least votes gets elected. Democracy in action

I agree totally. Introducing positive voting and everyone up for eviction is the single most effective improvement they could make.

It'd certainly make people less likely to fence-sit and try to win by stealth.

I agree, but it's hardly fair, is it?

definitely. IMO it'd boost revenues for C4 too, people are much more likely to vote for someone to win then for someone to get evicted. They do it in the final week and it works well, so why not?

You know what it would put an end to, as well? People moaning that their favourite has been unfairly evicted (because they have). It would put the survival of the housemates back in the hands of their supporters. You want them to stay? You vote for them to stay.

Here's one for the conspiracy theorists, too. They couldn't negatively edit against a particular housemate to ensure their eviction, if you think that that's the sort of thing they like to get up to

did I say that I wanted negative voting in the final? er no I didn't, you see the question was shal all EVICTIONS be based on a positive vote, someone else might have accused you of putting words into their mouths, but I' ll let it go.

And even more people might think you are being a little silly suggesting we use the same method for general elections, THIS IS A GAMESHOW, some might even go as far as to suggest that some people take it way too seriously.

Myself I am stunned at the numbers who when they don't like whats going on start getting all het up and want to change it, I'm not saying this, but a cynic might suggest it is because the results have not been to their likeing that they want to change it.

So, do you want negative voting in the final or not If you think it's the fairest way to decide who's going to be evicted, then presumably you think it's the fairest way to decide the winner.

As for being disappointed that my favourite has been evicted, well, take a look at this thread that I posted on 26th May. You even replied to it

didn't quite catch my edit, sorry my fault. Hmmm. mentioning the three way vote last year, OK I know where you're coming from.

Right.

Can I take that as a yes, then

so far i have been totally againest the idea of positive voting..but now i can see why there is a need for it.
looking at poll ratings clearly shows negative voting in multiple evictions does not work.
in fact i would have thought if anything it would pull in more revenue for endemol if there was positive voting because i would vote for more than 1 hm to stay as opposed to voting for 1 hm to leave