Do not believe judges should have vote, as they are luuve influenced, they can have opinion, and public can choose should look at this, but a a vote on their part distorts a vote, leave it to publc and keep it democratic.

One of the sad truths: democracy without education is a damp squib. We still need the judges or we'd end up with a show like the jungle thing, guided by nothing more than momentary likings and ephemeral doodahs.

(And you wonder why the current lot don't back education...)

Glad they do have a say (but only once) as they prevent decent dancers leaving early through lack of popularity giving the public the chance to follow their journey learning to dance. It is after all an entertaining show about people learning to dance. NOT lets see how popular I am on twitter regardless of how badly I can dance.

I believe that the Queen votes for Chelsee and Jason, while Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall liked Russell but since he's gone out she votes for Alex. Now they are hardly members of the public.

BTW Have you had a few sherries this evening?

Goodness knows, but her unpleasantness shines through even given her barely comprehensible English. I'm wondering how many Holly bashing threads she can start. :yawn:

It would certainly make it a fairer competition. Unfortunately it would not suit the BBC who have a vested interest in getting certain celebrities through each round.

Democracy is every person having one vote (should they choose to exercise this) so that all have an equal chance to influence the result of an election.

It is not some obsessed fans voting dozens of times each in order to save their favourite.

There is an argument for a public only vote (not one I would agree with but there is one) but that it would make the vote democratic is not it.

No it wouldn't. It would put the ones who can afford to vote multiple times in charge and be based on popularity rather than any sort of ability. Unlike the Jungle or BB there is some skill involved in SCD so that needs to be accounted for.

Heaven forfend that the public should have sole say I would like them limited to one vote per caller phone number, but that will never happen.

We do have the sole say at the final as the judges' score that week are for guidance and fun. Remember 2008 when we forced the rethink on how sums were done: it was realised we couldn't have saved in Tom in the semi because Rachel and Lisa were tied on 3 points each and Tom on 1? Had Kelly still been dancing it might have gone very differently, who knows?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlycomedan...t/voting.shtml

Double elimination this semi-final!

If only the public vote mattered then SCD would implode within 2 seasons as contestants would understandably focus more on soliciting that vote and less on developing their dancing skills. Think never-ending Russell.

It would be another show entirely - maybe one that could be tried out but not at the expense of SCD.

With just the public voting, it would be come a total popularity contest, there would be no point any of them making an effort to learn to dance.

Maybe we should abandon the justice system as well and bring back mob-lynching - you know it makes (common) sense.

Reading the results out is just a fluffy public hanging.

Not if they can squeeze 'I love everyone' into every sentence.

BIB Can someone translate this for me please?

and public can choose (who) should look at this?

perhaps we will get vouchers for being able to hear what the judges say by shopping at specific shops?

I can translate.....it reads....'I am completely cheesed off that Holly danced well and was given a high score and therefore was not eliminated, as I had predicted in a million and one anti Holly threads in the last few days. I have drowned my sorrows and my command of the English language has deserted me'.

Thank you both. The meaning still isn't clear even with "who" inserted in the sentence. Ooooh, the education standards of today have a lot to answer for. *rant, rant*

I wonder if the BBC release the actual public votes that each couple received each week? I remember seeing them for the X Factor last year; it will be interesting to know who received the highest number of votes each week and who would have been eliminated based on public votes alone, not taking into account judges scores...

(although the OP's command of the English language seems to desert her often. Temper, temper)

This has been asked many times.
The BBC won't release the figures and never have, as they say it is "Commercially sensitive information."

This is "BBC speak" to avoid revealing how few votes there are compared with the total viewing figures.

Or perhaps how few people were voting for the obvious judges favourites.

Very well said

There's the issue of money. Do the BBC make money from the phone votes? If so, there's another problem. More votes=more money for the Beeb.

No they're not allowed to. Which is why the votes now cost less than they used to when the money used to go to Children in Need (used to cost 25p if I recalll correctly, now only 15).