This would be a fantastic idea, but ultimately, this is a money making venture and it's in the production company's interests to make as much cash as possible.

So they're going to be clamouring for the multiple vote per week...

The BBC doesn't make money out of the phone votes. They are not allowed to.

And there was some problem that cropped up regarding CiN so they stopped doing that (several years ago now).

It is not a practical proposition. What about those with no licence who watch the show on a group telivision like a pub, naafi nursing home etc.

How do you know this?

Do they limit the votes by phone or text though? They certainly didn't on Season 8 of American Idol or this ambiguity on the final results would not have happened!



Do they limit the votes by phone or text though? They certainly didn't on Season 8 of American Idol or this ambiguity on the final results would not have happened!


http://m.nzherald.co.nz/entertainmen...ectid=10575622

This is interesting because there's conflicting information about who earns what from the telephone votes...

I'd still say it's in the Beeb's interest to get as many calls as poss.

Wow, it's been a while since I've seen so many assumptions presented as assertions in just the first half of a sentence

No, I'm 18 - 25* and a girl** and I totes vote for who I fancee...***

See. Must be right.

* This may not be entirely true.

** This definitely isn't.

*** I reserve the right to answer this one honestly :P

Oh, for goodness sake, fans of all the couples are guilty of voting multiple times...it isn't as if the DVO or Kimble fans were all exercising self restraint and voting just the one time...some may have been, but I've seen lots of posts on this forum saying they had voted multiple times for all the finalists...so, limiting it to one vote would likely have no impact on the result, it would just mean less profit for whoever it is who is creaming off the call fees.

"BBC competitions and votes will not be run in order to make a profit. The only time BBC competitions or votes will be aimed at raising funds will be for a BBC charitable initiative."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/edit...-competitions/

Frankly if someone feels passionately enough about a contestant to vote multiple times, I say let them. It's better than those years when no-one feels invested enough to pick up the phone.

Anyway, young, attractive women have won and done well in Strictly before. It's all about who connects with the audience and makes an impact on the show. Perhaps the producers should concentrate on finding younger female celebs for the show who aren't made in the identikit 'bot' factory and find people with wit and something to say.

Louis won last night because the Charleston put a smile on people's faces, the Salsa was a crowd-pleaser and the risky showdance, that could have been a Bacofoil disaster, blew the others out of the water.

I am intrigued as to how BBC deduced the orientation part. Gay dancers, maybe, but gay voters? How do they know? Do you know a clip on YouTube? (Cannot access Iplayer).

During Strictly season the male readers in this forum are boosted a little by an influx of males from Betfair Forum who realise this forum is the best-informed and provides an elimination spoiler on Saturday night. These punters would be motivated more by betting P&L than a passion for dance.

People like my parents and in-laws would not be able to vote at all, one set has a computer but not really sure how to use it and the other set doesn't have a computer or mobile.
Adding online voting to text and phone voting might be a good idea but making it online only would exclude a lot of people.

Also restricting votes is fine if only one or two people watch Strictly per household but if a large family or group of people sit and watch together. If there were 7 of us and we could only vote 5times as a household then the only fair thing would be if no-one voted and that would be a shame.

I hope some of those who are coming out with these ridiculous generalisations haven't completed the strictly research questionnaire I've just been looking at! My goodness, talk about flawed results with no credibility or empirical evidence to support such presumptions.

People vote for all sorts of reasons. You have just quoted a total cliche!

Also, when they are doing multiple dances I like to vote once for each round.

I dimly remember some sort of research agency doing a survey on Strictly, and it turned out that whilst women were more likely to vote, men were more likely to be multivoters. I may be misremembering though. It also showed a greater parity in the gender of the viewership than most people assume (I think it was about 65-35 in favour of women).

Interesting Monkseal...I wonder how many of the male admirers (who are straight) would admit to watching Ola for sex appeal rather than her dancing. I know this is an aside to the voting issue, but I've still not seen some [rational] reason for the assertion that only younger women voted for Louis, only that he has a good body and he took his top off.

That had to stop because of all the dodgy phone voting on commercial channels, pity because it was good source of revenue for the charities but spoilt by greed at other channels.

That would work against anyone starting with no dance experience and work for those who are already trained dancers (not just Denise).

Better and fairer to vote on the actual performance on the programme.

I don't know where the conflicting information is but the BBC is very open about how the money is used, to cover the cost of operating the phone voting. I think some see the higher cost of voting from a mobile or non-BT phone but that is nothing to do with the BBC and does not go to the BBC.

If you nosey around the BBC website there's quite a bit of conflicting info about where the money goes.

But if it doesn't go to charity and it doesn't go to the BBC, where does that 15p go?

To the phone company that runs the phone lines.

flawed as it may be, i just don't think its possible or reasonable to police people's phone voting in this day and age.

Ok - I stand corrected. I always thought the money DID go to Children in Need, but I'm obviously wrong.