How many times do we hear judges say "I can't decide between the acts; I'll take it to deadlock, and let the public decide"?

At that point there is already a 2-1 vote. If he/she feels that both acts are equal, he/she should vote with act that already has two votes, and allow the majority vote of the judges, who could decide, to prevail.

Voting to take it to deadlock is negating one of the majority votes. It is a positive vote for the act that so far has the least votes.

Of course it is a neutral vote! It makes it equal as if voting never took place at all. How can giving another vote to the winning contestant be more neutral than equalising the scores?

Because if they don't vote at all the act with two votes wins.

Then I think the OP should mention abstaining... however, if I was a judge and on the fence about two acts then I would let the public decide too. I see nothing wrong with using a vote to cancel out the previous votes and go to public vote. It makes sense and that's why it's been happening for years with few people taking issue.

Is there a wild card ?

BUT they already know the phone result and so just abuse it when they want to get out of looking bad by sending a children home.

Watch later when the phone vote isn't what they want at all and so they won't be going to it and instead decide themselves.

It's fixed all the way.

If you agree with abstaining (I don't think that is allowed on the programme), then voting with the majority is the only way, under their rules, to accomplish what abstaining would do.

The easy way would be to leave the voting to the public, but they won't do that.

Of course not! They would lose control.

There would be all sorts of interesting acts getting through instead of a carefully selected set to get Simon and recording artist.

I totally agree with you. Last night Cowell, knowing the result of the public vote, just chickened out


Judges are supposed to judge.

So true.

Even if that is not true that is the overwhelming and undeniable impression - and why would we assume that everything really is open and above board anyway. You only have to see the order of the acts and the amount of back/sob story to know what's going to happen even before the votes are in.

We haven't got to the part, yet, where the public is mysteriously voting for the worst act, and the judges keep them in because they are entertaining, rather than have talent.

They just do it to cause controversy and keep the viewers interested. If the choice is between being fair to the contestants and improving the viewing figures, there is no contest.