Rather than post another one of those "what do you want to see in Big Brother" type threads, I thought I'd make this one very specific - all about the nominations.

To clarify (and insult your intelligence), the current process in the UK is that each housemate secretly nominates two people for eviction in the diary room. The two or more with the most votes then face the public vote to determine who is evicted. Housemates are forbidden from discussing the nominations process.

So should the nominations process change - or does the original formula work best.

I'll begin by outlining a few variations of the nominations process.


The simple changes:

Firstly, it could be something as simple as allowing housemates to talk about nominations. The process would be the same, but it would add a new dimension of open plotting to the show - and IMO make it much more of a game.

Secondly, a minor change to the top three housemates facing eviction could make a major difference - with more housemates at risk of eviction each week.

Maybe weighting the nominations is another option. In Australia each HM makes two nominations - giving 2pts to their first choice nominee, 1pt to their second nominee. Those with the most points are up for eviction.

Variations as seen in the UK:

In both Big Brother 3 and Big Brother 4 a different process was used in the first week - but unfortunately the producers never had the guts to implement it throughout the series.

In Big Brother 3 during the first week the public choose who was nominated for eviction. The two with the most votes were up for eviction - with their fellow housemates deciding who goes.

In Big Brother 4 each housemates nominated just one person - but that person automatically was put up for eviction. Implementing that throughout the series means just one enemy could lead to you being kicked out the house.


Variations from around the world:

These are basically variations of the Head of House concept. In the USA the Head of House nominates two people for eviction - with the other housemates voting to determine the evictee.

This could work with the public voting for who is evicted - but then the other housemates would effectively have no part in the nomination process unless they are Head of House.


I like the Brazilian reworking. The Head of House nominates one person to automatically face the public vote, with the other housemates voting once each to determine the second nominee (the Head of House only votes to break a tie!). The viewers then vote to decide who is evicted.


Those are the main nomination processes I know of from other BB's - please add to this list if you can.

Most importantly though is to add your thoughts - would you like to see any off the above introduced, or do you have an idea off your own!

Please only discuss twists to the nominations process in this thread. There are several other threads asking for general ideas.

I hate the idea of points, never liked it in the australian version.
The spanish format has points, each housemate makes three nominations with 1 point being given to one hm, 2 to another and so on.. the 3 or more hm's with the most points are put up for eviction with one evicted each week
I don't know of any other nomination processes but I think the current one is fine and with a few changes every now and again throughout the series like normal, it's great.
I do agree with the discussing of nominations though

Something as simple as putting the nominations on the TV screen in the living area would be interesting.

discussing nominations or face to face nominations

I'd like them to be able to discuss nominations because that would lead to more bitching and generally great viewing.

For me this year needs a vote reversal.

You vote for the two people you want to STAY, failing to nominate would result in you losing a vote.

Along the same lines tell the housemates that they are voting OUt two people but infact count the votes as stay votes (without them knowing). How long will it take before the suss what is happening.

The major problem with voting to stay is it be quite boring to watch. Far more fun to see them picking faults with each other. It would probably also remove the tension around the nomination process.


Disagree with your second point though. While the odd trick is fine, I think it's important that Big Brother never lies to the housemates - although obviously they can always bend the truth. Your idea would only be acceptable if Big Brother asked housemates for their "nominations" - with HMs assuming they are nominating people to leave, but actually they are nominating people to stay. That wouldn't be a lie - just a misunderstanding!

I hate head of house idea, I think this was experimented in CBB3 where Lisa was made a queen. I think it gives them freedom to get carried away and be bossy.

The twist to the nominations could be Diary Room having a screen. And in the 1st or 2nd week they could use this. Heres how it goes; HM Y is called to the diary room when its time for nominations and say they make
nomination about HM X and then HM X is called to DR to make his/her nominations. BB then shows what HM Y has said about him/her and then tells him/her to nominate and to nominate with reasons and dont discuss your DR chat with fellow HMs. This process runs through all the HMs.
HMs will become confused as they wonder why they weren't called alphabetically.

In some ways discussing nominations would good - it could lead to alliances. As long as the actual nominations are kept secret then it would add to the intrigue as people wondered whether they could really trust the people who they had made allinaces with - and we could have the pleasure of seeing people shaft their so called mates by making an alliance with them and then voting them out.

The HMs could nominate three people for eviction and those three with the most votes could face the public vote of who the public wants to "Stay" this would make it more interesting.

I'm not that thrilled with HoH to be honest - to me it spoils the game.

What is needed with the noms is to try and make it more of a game for both those in the house and us lot at home watching. This year the added competitive element (and the admttance of that) was good and added an extra dimension to the show. - so for me anything that makes it more tactical would be good.

I like the points idea.

I also think they should have at least two free votes for who we want to stay - somewhere near the beginning, and then this would oust the boring ones at the start and make the fence sitters get off the fence.

Screening nominations to each other just doesn't work - it'll affect subsequent nominations and if done live, the HMs who nominate later have an advantage. The only time it could be done is for the final round of nominations.

Much better to be open about it and allow the discussion of nominations.



Another idea - the process stays the same, but the way the results are announced is changed.

Instead of revealing the two or more nominees, Big Brother could announce how many nominations each housemate has received and then confirm the result.

They could also do something Pop Idol style and in announcing the results quote some of the comments made (but without revealling who made them!) about each housemate who received a nomination - and then say if they are nominated or not!

A totally random thought. How about putting up for eviction those who nominate the same pair of individuals? If x nominates Peter and Paul, and y nominates Peter and Paul, , and z etc. , then x, y a d z, being the ones who belong to the largest group of like-minded hm's, are the ones to face the public vote.

I'd like to see them all up for eviction each week - might stop the 'I'm not going to say anything controversial, I've got no views about anything that others might not like and the keep out of the way if there is any trouble' syndrome.

they should all be up for eviction every week but they are still made to nominate just so we know who the do and dont like

I think that would be worth a try, make the 'game' more important, make them feel as though sitting back isn't an option, they have to play to survive. I like the idea of negotiating alliances, treachery, suspicion........trust or shaft ?

I think the last two editions have been really boring and I probably need something different to keep me watching for BB6.

I'd certainly give it fair wind if discussion of nominations was allowed.


Two problems that I foresee.


Firstly the GBP would probably vote out the 'players' at the first opportunity with tabloid shock horror 'bitching' and 'backstabbing' headlines feeding the frenzy

Secondly it would be quite likely that the HMs would talk of nothing but nominations 24 hours a day...........this in itself might get tedious. Although for the last couple of years, nobody has had anything to talk about anyway so we might not be any worse off.

like this idea, but would still make them all nominate could you imagine the response when the nominations where announced, sounds like fun to me fair enough if they have any sense they would realise what is going on but for a few weeks it would be fun while they worked out what was going on.

The best BB series were the ones where nominations mattered. its far better to have people guessing than to know about alliances - it spoils all the tension if they discuss who to vote out. You reduce a drama to a forseeable plot and series of evictions a five year old could predict.

Letting them know nominations is disasterous - it just leads to miserable HM with no one getting along - the house is built on relationships and most relationships would not stand knowing that the other person had nominated you. If you look at BB2-5 the stories of all 4 houses depend on people not knowing that the people they later become friendly with nominated them at an early stage.

Letting them diiscuss nominations doesn't work either. It just removes problems. In BB3 PJ and Jonny would have told Kate to nominate Adele and why she was wrong to like her - that would have ensured the outcome and removed the risk which was the main feature of BB3. Kate would have stopped Jonny nominating Spencer which would have probably removed any tension from the show because Alex wouldn't have survived .

Nominating everyone just doesn't work either - the result of the public voting is that the key characters in the plot go early and the atmosphere or drama is sabotaged. in BB1,2 and 5 you run the risk that the people who keep the house together and allow the winners to shine might go early because the teen public think they are boring - the result is less happens or at worst the winner leaves because Dean and Elizabeth are not there to keep him happy. In the more dramatic BB1, 3, 5 there is no point in setting up a house with a good and bad team inherent in the casting or a Nasty Nick character if you then just allow the public to vote out the nastiest people leaving the good side to coast to the final. You script for drama not a procession. Nominations give you uncertainty and drama. Remember who the public got rid off first in BB4 and who would have gone in BB3.

The answer is to leave nominations alone but cast the show so that they matter. Putting one obvious winner in like BB 5 is a lot easier but the best BB series have been when one of a number of possible winners comes through the battle after surving the nominations danger.

Of those listed so far I'd go for the Spanish version mentioned by Mad Puppy - "each housemate makes three nominations with 1 point being given to one hm, 2 to another and so on.. the 3 or more hm's with the most points are put up for eviction with one evicted each week."

No major surgery is required, just keep things fair and simple. There was far too much manipulation of the nomination process in BB5, none of which improved the show.

Agree with what your saying there - whatever nomination process they use they need to stick with it! A one-off twist is fine (e.g. the Boot camp!), but the nominations are core to the show.

It was ridiculous in Celebrity Big Brother 3 that we only had two genuine round of nominations - when really there should have been four or five.


I'd still like to see the game element increased for Big Brother 6 - either through the Head of House format or a reworking of the Rich-Poor format - where being on the rich side also means immunity from nomination!


Re: Head of House - the same idea could be used within the current format, but without the status of Head of House.

Instead after the nominations (but before the results) the housemates would compete in a task, with the winner having all nominations against them cancelled.

I totally agree with you BBDodge. A 3-point system with 3 nominations from each HM and a minimum of 3 up for eviction would create more tensions. HMs would find it impossible to work out who nominated whom. (A HM with say 9 points wouldn't know if s/he was mildly disliked by 9 fellow HMs or really dislike by only 3!)

I'd add to that by suggesting that the point totals for each HM should be announced to the house with nominations. They could be given in reverse order to create tension. (And I think you could bet that if someone received 0 points a couple of weeks running, they wouldn't slip under the radar for a third week!)

Finally, don't mess about with the nomination process. It's sacrosanct! (In BB5 HMs only got to nominate 4 times in 10 weeks. In CBB3 only twice). I gave up telephone voting during BB5 because I thought BB was manipulating the nominations. And I didn't vote at all in CBB3 because positive voting is a farce - the HMs voting to evict, the public voting to stay - just doesn't make sense.