I didn't think it should have been the win of anyone other than the one with the most votes. So that worked out ok

I cant see that either girl has been more entertaining than the other. They have both been very nice.

It's very funny seeing people try and rationalise the sudden upsurge in votes for Charlie as "maybe they just liked her" and dismissing the Ashley fans' disappointment as sour grapes.

I think if people are honest and rational about it it's quite clear that the reasons listed in the opening post are quite valid indicators of what won it for Charlie, along with the extra 1m casual voters the show is likely to have garnered tonight voting for the familiar face rather than the unknown.

If this is not the case then why was Ashley clearly leading all the polls, bookies' favourite and even leading the vote at the start of the show, only to be pipped at the post?

Why have I read comments from Eastenders fans on this and other sites clearly intimating that they voted for her because she's on Eastenders?

I've also seen similar comments saying they're glad a Brit won it.

And of course numerous comments congratulating "princess Kiki".

The evidence is all there. Ignore it if you like and dismiss those that thought Ashley was the obvious winner as being bitter, but it won't make the four factors any less relevant.

The fact that Dec said the vote was very close suggests that any and all of these factors are likely to have swayed it in Charlie's favour.

It's just a shame that the winner has clearly been chosen on familiarity rather than on which of them truly deserved it over the course of the three weeks.

Except the reality is the opposite of that.

Good post.

She won it for me for 3 reasons

1. She was fun
2. She tried her best at everything
3. She was strong and stood up for people.

I had a more cynical outlook on that .. It crossed my mind that she knew it would be aired, and took the opportunity to come across well to the viewers. I may have been wrong though

I agree with this. Charlie is a lovely girl, and deserved to do well. I just feel that others in the camp were more entertaining, and made the series fun to watch. For me personally, not knowing either of them from before the show, Ashley was simply funnier, more dynamic, more interesting, more watchable.

I had kind of a question mark about that. She only mentioned feeling uncomfortable about it after everyone else had agreed that they would let the new arrivals suffer. So, a cynical ploy to look caring without having to actually do anything, or expressing genuine discomfort with the group's decision? Who knows?

So your rationalisation is somehow more valid and rational?

Whilst I watch the show and read these threads, I don't pay any attention to the betting odds or follow the media coverage, but if these were showing Ashley in the lead then they could have galvanised people who preferred Charlie but otherwise would not have bothered into casting a vote for their preference, or those who had already voted for her into throwing an extra vote her way.

The points in the OP were equally as true yesterday when the final two were announced as they were during the show, so why was Ashley apparently ahead at the top of the show?

I don't doubt that people voted for her because they are EE fans, but this will have been cancelled out to an extent by:

- EE fans who hate her character and so didn't want the actress to win and voted against her (I know it seems daft, but these people do exist, you can find examples of them in this very forum)

- people who will have voted for Ashley because they loved the PCDs.

On the Kiki question, I suspect that this will have lost Charlie votes as well as gained them, as people don't like to think they are being manipulated. There is no way of knowing how the one stacks up against the other.

I agree that the extra viewers who only tune in for the final are more likely to know Charlie than Ashley, but we don't know what proportion of them vote and what basis they use for voting. Perhaps some of them base it on what they see onscreen on the night rather than 'I know her/don't know her'?

The other things we don't know are:

- what happened to the 'David' vote, ie how people who lost their favourite on Friday night voted in the final.

- what impact on voting preferences Ashley's greater share of airtime in the first week had, when she had the disruption secret task

- what impact on voting preferences the amount of Ashley coverage there was in the Ant and Dec links in the main show and the Joe Swash crush in Now had.

If we're honest and rational about it, all we know for sure is that Charlie got more votes. The rest is speculation.

I agree with all that.

Obviously it's not just going to be one thing, it's going to be a combination of factors which will have varying levels of effect.

I don't know how representative of people in general this is but when you're getting celebrities on '...Out of Here Now' saying that they want Charlie to win because she's British, would this not be a reflection of the public at large to some extent?
I don't know. It's a genuine question I ask.

If it is then I don't really understand how anybody could be proud if she won based on that criteria.

Best person hardly ever wins these shows, as was shown again tonight.

We know who's the real winner Ashley

Its an ITV show too. People who do shows on the other channel to their own usually do badly. Eastenders don't do well on BBC shows, so its a bit difficult to see why one can win IAC on ITV on an Eastender's vote when Patsy, Louisa, Letitia, Jessie, Natalie, Anita and Sid didn't benefit from any similar massive vote on SCD on the BBC itself.

@norbitonite

Sorry, but my point still remains the most rational explanation.

The points in the OP were not equally true yesterday, because they were not voting for the winner. It was not an either/or choice.

However, that does not mean that they weren't already contributing to the level of support Charlie received to get this far in the competition.

Regarding the Eastenders votes, it's fallacious to surmise that people wouldn't vote for her because of her character. The vast majority of Eastenders fans love to hate her character and actually admire her personally for her portrayal of such a vile character. The percentage of people who would vote against her for that reason would be utterly miniscule.

Equally, the Pussycat Dolls' most successful album sold 1.2m copies in the UK, 7 years ago, and Ashley is quite clearly one of the least recognisable members.

Meanwhile, Eastenders is watched by between 5-10m people every other day. Ashley's support from Pussycat Dolls fans can only logically have paled in comparison to the number of Eastenders fans rooting for Charlie.

On the question of Kiki, as you said, it's hard to judge. But I think it's again only logical to assume that the situation would have pulled at heart strings, particularly amongst female viewers. Ashley had no such emotional capital working in her favour. Nothing at all.

As for the casual voter voting on what they see onscreen on the night rather than 'I know her/don't know her', even if true all it'd mean is that the swinging votes weren't based on a fair representation of the two.

It'd mean they were based on highlights, designed to make the person look interesting, the final challenge and fleeting one-liners rather than the broader picture and who genuinely deserved it over the course of the three weeks.

That might suggest why Ashley was ahead in the votes at the start, thanks to regular viewers whose minds were already made up, and why Charlie surged through to win late on thanks to votes from casual viewers who only saw the way she was represented in the final

And finally, I think it is an absolute given that the voting public would favour the Brit, and I've read comments to endorse that assumption.

I think the coup de grace is that we could not compile a similar list of contributing factors that might influence people to vote for Ashley. The single most pertinent factor in voting for Ashley was clearly the impression gained of her on the show over the last few weeks.

But apparently that's not enough. Even though that's surely what it's meant to be based on.

I don't think that SCD is a good comparison because the public vote is only half of the score, it is based on learning a measurable skill and I don't think that the voting numbers are ever made public.

Charlie won for three reasons.

Ver ver sexist.

Good posts Malliday.

^This +1 Like

Ashley talked about her rocky relationship with her father and how her time in the jungle had made her determined to mend the relationship.

Ashley talked about her mother and her unreserved love and support... she also had a phone call from her.

Ashley talked about life in the PCD and how she was not allowed to talk during interviews... which I think must have been incredibly difficult for her as she has such a bright, positive and bubbly personality.

Ashley was also the focus of attention from Dec on numerous occasions.

I think the main problem here is that Charlie and Ashley are very similar... both of them are intelligent, compassionate, independent and bright. They both gave their trials 100% no matter how difficult they were...in short they are both good role models in a celebrity culture that include the likes of the TOWIE/Geordie/Jordan/Kerry et al.

Personally I think what pipped it for Charlie was her more obvious suffering in the trials... both Ashley and David breezed through the trials and the GBP has proved time and time again they prefer people to suffer. I do however think that Ashley will benefit most from IAC in the longterm and I hope she does get some decent work... I think she would be a great presenter.

I didn't vote this year because I just could not choose between them...what I liked about one was true of the other... they are both lovely.

Just to clarify, the points were equally as valid on Friday after the show, yet Ashley was ahead going into the broadcast of the final which indicates that when it initially became a vote for the winner Ashley was ahead.

I surmised nothing. I stated as fact that there are EE fans who voted against her because they dislike the character she plays. I also said that there are people who have admitted this on these forums, so it is in no way fallacious.

As I said in my post, these two things offset the EE fan vote to some extent. There is no way of knowing how much, so I don't see how you can make such catagoric assertions.

As I also said, it will presumably have had a detrimental effect where some voters are concerned. Again, we have no way of knowing the net impact of one versus the other.

If you extend that argument, only people who've watched every episode should be allowed to vote because only they would be able to form 'the broader picture and who genuinely deserved it over the course of the three weeks'.

But equally, it might not. We simply don't have the data to know.

Sadly, I have too. I must say though I find it interesting that you dismiss my observations that are based on comment I have read that endorse them with 'it's fallacious to surmise', when you are doing the same thing here.

But we can compile a different list of contributing factors to why Ashley was popular:

- she was acknowledged to be 'hawt'
- she got far more airtime in week one than Charlie
- she did have the 'heartstring tug' of 'my family are so far away that they can't even watch me on TV to know how I'm getting on, unlike everybody else'

- she got lots of coverage in both the main show and the spinoff due to presenters having crushes on her.

Etc, etc

Now I'm not saying that any of this is conclusive of anything. What I am saying is neither is what you have put forward.

I say again, all we know for sure is that Charlie polled the most votes. The rest is conjecture.

@norbitonite

I don't think it can be so easily dismissed as conjecture. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest likely influences upon voting, especially if they're entirely credible, as the OP's clearly were. I mean, why did the Tories/Lib Dems win the last election? You can't say for certain how each individual voted but I think we can all suggest with quite some certainty the reasons.

Regarding those voting against Charlie because of her character, I'm sorry, for some reason I missed where you said that you'd seen people admit as much on this forum. So it's not a fallacious assertion. However, as I said, I think it's reasonable to assume that of those of Eastenders' vast viewing figures who decided to watch I'm A Celebrity only a miniscule number would have let their dislike of her character influence their vote, compared to those that voted in her favour due to her association with the show.

Regarding Kiki, come on?! Are you seriously suggesting that a sob story of a mother missing her child and being reunited as the winner of the show wouldn't have more of a positive impact than a negative one? It's quite obvious that the motherhood angle and separation from her daughter will have gained her far more votes than it lost her. That's just common sense.

Regarding the Pussycat Dolls versus Eastenders vote. Again, come on! I don't need to make categoric assertions. The potential numbers speak for themselves.

I never said that only viewers who had watched it over the three weeks should be able to vote, but the fact is that those who vote on the basis of the final alone are not privy to what the regular viewers have seen over the previous few weeks and so their vote is unlikely to reflect the most deserving campmate but rather whoever is best represented in that final hour, or who they are most familiar with. Therefore I think it's a shame if their votes sway it one way or the other.

So you concur on the suggestion that there were people out there voting for Charlie simply because they wanted a Brit to win. That's something Ashley couldn't counter and which may have swung the vote.

I'll accept that the fact that Ashley being the "hawt" one is a point in her favour. But I think that would be a less important factor, particularly among I'm A Celebrity's predominantly female audience, than the factors mentioned in the OP's post. In fact, I can imagine any boost it offered her being easily counteracted by those who found her impeccable looks and porcelain white teeth off-putting compared to Charlie's everywoman looks.

As for Ashley's family being so far away, that was barely mentioned. It was that phonecall and no more. Whereas Charlie's motherhood and separation was referenced over and over again, particularly in the final and in the papers. So there's no comparison there.

Regarding airtime, I think it was pretty even in the long run. I don't remember Ashley getting any more airtime than Charlie in the first week. I only remember them giving Ashley serious airtime once they realised she was actually surprisingly popular about a week or so in.

Finally, regarding the voting, the whole point of the opening post is that it was due to those factors that Charlie won. At what point people influenced by those factors voted is ultimately not really relevant. What's relevant is that those factors influenced their votes.

And I think those factors are all entirely realistic and influential contributory factors without which, if it were based solely on how they came across over the last few weeks, Charlie probably wouldn't have won.

That's what it comes down to. Who would have won, given how they performed in the jungle, were those factors not in play? And I think the answer is that of the two Ashley would have won hands down.

I think if you think about it, Malliday, you probably need to think about this a little bit more. Think on it. Don't be so flippant. You regret it some day.

In what way was the post flippant ?

I know. I really should start thinking about things in more depth.

4. Ashley dissed corned beef
5, Ashley had never heard of Kirk Douglas

It wasn;t flippant but some venn diagrams would have helped plus a few decorative jungle motifs around the edge.
.

This is what I'm talking about. Flippancy!

Nah, but seriously. This is what I'm talking about. We will never get to the bottom of things without these illustrative aides you (so flippantly) allude to. Reams of back and forth conjecture and speculation, though perhaps based upon a semi-sound foundation of suppositional data, cannot and will not (neither now nor never) suffice.

The root of this is, tautologically, in the radical!