Hi everyone, I have read these lovely forums on so many occasions and I rarely comment if at all.

Alas it seems to me, and has for many years now with these competitions while the judges whether I agree with or not grade on what they perceive as performance or the emotions in the moments but still measured in at-least some professional regard .

Yet public is encouraged always to vote for their favourites rather than someone that doesn't in our opinion deserve to dance next week. This may be probable as more may vote for a favourite.

I and many, many of you have too, observed countless opinions over time and see more people want to bemoan rather than give praise.

So sadly I think it is time to vote for those that we feel does not deserve to dance or sing or what ever next week. I fear this may actually make more money for those involved and for semi-finals on ward vote for favourites.

So in a long winded opinion of mine, voting should represent, I believe should be for those we want to see leave.

What do others feel? Oh and Thank You for reading (mulled wine raised to you all).

I keep boring everyone with this but the first thing they should do is introduce tie breaks so the likes of Dave don't end up with 5, 6 even 7 points from the judges some weeks.

Welcome. It wouldn't work though. People still wouldn't vote for Dave they would vote for the person who was the biggest threat to their own particular favourite winning. It's human nature.

Very tempted to agree as we continue to see such awful "results" as tonight's have been

No. I understand this view to an extent, but I think a vote to eliminate wouldn't sit well with Strictly's image as a fun, feel-good entertainment show. It's one thing to know you didn't get as many votes as other people; it's another to know that people voted to get you out of the competition.

No, it would change the feelgood factor of Strictly into one of those nasty, mean-spirited Big Brother-type shows. I doubt many celebs would be keen to sign up to Strictly if it was going to lead to pure humiliation. As it stands being in the bottom two on Strictly doesn't necessarily mean the public don't like you (eg I thought Tony Jacklin came across as a charming gentleman) but that they have another favourite.

I take your point, but it seems just a little harsh to be voting AGAINST people in a light entertainment show.

If we are to be encouraged to vote for our "favourites", then decide the elimination on the public vote alone, and ignore the judges' scores.

Or how about we vote to "save" our favourites - automatically exclude from the public vote the couples in the top half of the leaderboard. Or say here are the four couples that the judges ranked lowest, from this four vote for the couple you want to save.

Absolutely not. The vote should always be a positive one in "talent" programmes like Strictly, X Factor, the Voice etc not a negative one Big Brother-style.

When the first of type (Pop Idol) was launched in 2001, the initial plan was to vote to eliminate, but just before the first live show it was changed to a "favourite" vote, and rightly so. They realised (from what happens on Big Brother) that with a negative vote people were more likely to vote tactically, and the boring/mediocre/quiet contestants could end up in the final as no-one cared enough to vote them out.

Does it really matter who leaves Strictly and who doesn't anyway? It's just a fluffy TV show. They'll all get eliminated from the competition eventually, and will all return to their day jobs. These shock bottom 2 placings add to the show's excitement and unpredictability.

Vote to leave? Good lord, no. As someone has already pointed out, people would vote against those they consider threats. I reckon it would result in more shock results rather than fewer.

Owdoo Pash,

Your writing ain't as good as your speeken Inglish innit, but sorry you left, mate.

You lost to worse couples in the vote, but the A team clinched it in the dance off.

Sad you were both there, but unless they ditch the viewer vote, it's always a risk.

To the rest of the series ( for you as a pro) ad I hope another celeb for you next year.

Na dzarovia, please excuse my pronunciation.

Absolutely not.

We don't want to turn it into Big Brother.

I am encouraged by responses thus far in only a few minutes, I feared it would be yes lets.

Thank you all for positive NO to title, but perhaps because we love fairness and dancing.

Maybe the producers will interpret the awful results as a backlash to the awful themed nights I am so so tired of .....!

How about voting for the person we'd like to win the competition? That's a novelty!

The BBC probably need to look at how they score the tied marks. With the judges ranking going from 4-11 tonight and the public vote going from 1-11, with the public vote also as a tiebreaker, the public votes are too heavily weighted. The argument in favor of heavily weighted public votes is that the public get what the public want, but the evidence of this series so far is that the public only want to vote for celebs when they've danced badly enough to be at the bottom of the table.

No no no. The judges can't have that kind of power. For good or bad the public vote is sacrosanct.

Last week I was sad to see Deborah leave & a bit sad to see Rachel go but they were never going to win.

Abbey shouldn't be so low in the public vote but she obviously was (she had to be bottom of the vote except for possibly Rachel) and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

If we did, we wouldn't be any better off. According to the least favourite thread we'd have a dance off of Dave v Natslie.

Well tonight put an end to fairness and dancing????

I would do something different, currently the voters do not vote for the best, they do not vote for dancers they feel safe, they vote only for people who are considered at risk.

During the time we have big shows and a lot of celebrities I think we should have some celebrities that by their score are deemed safe and have an automatic pass to next week.

We the public vote for say the bottom half and then it's a true vote

So week one 15 celebrities you have say nine go through and we vote for the bottom six and two go in the dance off.

When we have ten celebrities then four automatically go through six are at risk, the public know their all at risk so it's a true vote,

This will end when there are fewer celebrities left.

This way:-
[LIST=1][*]Real competition to get the automatic pass.[*]The judges have a real incentive to vote for the best.[*]We have the best dancers stay and a more interesting show.[*]The people at risk are clearly sign posted for a real vote.[/LIST]

Exactly - given how many people don't believe Natalie should be in the competition, she would probably end up in the dance-off every week!

out of interest, anybody recall how many times Len's casting vote has been needed in the dance off?

I would have no objection to the voting question being turned on its head in this way for two reasons.
1. The end objective each week is to eliminate a couple so why not amend the voting question to reflect the objective?
2. More transparency. We would all get a clearer idea as to the public voting motivation imo. Nowhere to hide.

Big Brother got ruined by the "tween vote" who hate younger women (with personality) and older men.

Thus Big Brother became a contest between older "mumsy types", bland younger women, and "hot guys".

I agree

This is such old ground. Here is me thinking I am watching an entertainment show that is positive and uplifting unlike the awful X - factor.

In the first few weeks celebs always get voted off before their time but that's the vaugeries of lots of celebs in the first few weeks. By the time December comes around the best are always left to fight it out. Rachel would not have got anywhere near the final.

Let the GBP have their fun. Some people take it waaaay too seriously.

Never voted, never will. Waste of money.