Its got very little to do with who entertains the public, or personality, or ability early on.
I don't think there's much case that Scott or Judy are that much more entertaining or pleasant than several people who have already gone. Voting has much more to do with established patterns of behaviour, support bases and the demographics of who votes . Most people won't be voting at all early, but its those few who do that matter.

The best people are safe anyway because they will attract some of the vote from the people who vote on quality, and the leaderboard protects them.

Below that the vote is mechanical. Most people will have tiny votes- the big votes tend to go to the better dancers and the worst. There's a lot of people to compete for the few voets left, and no voters will be voting for everyone who they think should stay. . The votes going to those in the middle can easily be beaten - by people who have a large enough minority voting for them - on grounds unrelated to anything much relevant,. Those with active support bases - like Scotland/Tennis/radio 1 stay. Those who are bottom of the leaderboard, or attract low marks and harsh comments that week, stay - because 20-30% of the vote just votes against the judges. The ones with a big enough support base, or who are bad enough to be funny then overstay - even if they have little else going for them.

It does matter - because when you have one or two unremovable weak players in the list, the middle field gets destroyed . At some point the middle field with potential goes too early too. And this year, with 4 or 5 capable people in the list who could deserve to win, its quite possible to start losing them before the hopeless cases get thrown out when more people begin to vote in the last 2 or 3 stages.

Certainly not he should carry on.

The judges do not realise that by being so overly critical they are actually making the public vote for him and Judy. There comments have been very harsh at times and not nice.

If everyone taking part were all great dancers what is the point of the show.

It is an entertainment show and you need a mix of both good and not so good dancers.

It makes it more interesting seeing the not so good ones improve each week.

So Scott and Judy are finding it more difficult than some of the others to get to grips with the dances but that' what makes for entertainment.

I agree with that! If this week's show had been as lack-lustre as last, then I think I would have given up watching.

In answer to the question: if he's not out by this Sunday, yes please.

No. Sargeant shouldn't have 'done a Sargeant'. People who sign up for the show should stay the course.

Before they sign they should be aware that they may be rather good at dancing but - perhaps embarrassingly - might be voted off prematurely due to lack of public popularity. Alternately - but also embarrassingly – they may be a hopeless dancer but keep being voted back week after week, ousting better dancers, because the public likes them, or at least enjoys watching them look foolish. That's the deal. For that, they get massive coverage on the biggest show on the BBC. Take it or leave it, but don't try to have your cake and eat it.

That's true. It's the viewers choice who they vote for. for whatever reason they choose. That's the game

No def not, and I say this as someone that thinks Scott is one of the worst dances this series.
His dancing is not my cup of tea, but I allow anyone the right to waste their money to phone and save him and, if he gets enough to stay, then he stays, and does so until he doesn't get enough or any more.

To this day I still feel sorry for Kristina that she put in all that hard work with John and then he decides to pull out due to the fear they might win! Talk about not respecting those that paid their money to save him each week.

No matter how ridiculous a result might seem to some, it is a reflection of mass/majority opinion, and so be it if that's the case.

I don't think Chris Parker getting to the final is that significant because it happened in the first series before the show became really popular. I think he got to the final more on the strength being a popular character in EE than being a joke. The joke contestant didn't really exist until JS did the show.

Before then there was never any real worry a duffer would win and the producers didn't try to manipulate the situation in the way they do now with ridiculous props like Nancy's coffin or AW flying on to the dance floor, etc.