..if we could vote to "evict"? There seems to be a feeling that the vote for favourite is biassed against the middle of the Leader Board, and it strikes me that if we could vote to boot out the worst dancer, then that would resolve that issue. Thoughts?
Would it be fairer...
1 of 2
It might work. The people voting for one particular contestant would then spread their votes across the board instead of concentrating on a poor but popular dancer.
It's a Saturday evening, happy, fun, sparkly, family light entertainment show that relies on celebs taking part.
Changing the vote would change the entire feel of the show, and I'm not sure that it's one the powers that be really want.
How many celebs are going to put themselves forward to know they are unpopular in a public vote when their entire career is built on the reverse? It's easy to maintain the fiction with the unsafe middle/people think you are safe mantra. Slightly less easy when you've plunged from third to bottom on a no one likes you vote - but hey, come back next week and try again.
When it comes down to it, if people are voting for the bottom of the leaderboard it's because they want to. If the majority of voters/viewers want to see the less able progress then that's what keeps them watching. Turning it into a procession could mean that they get fed up.
Usually, common sense kicks in when it gets to the pointy end after a shock boot anyway - unless you discount series one, obviously.
Changing the vote would change the entire feel of the show, and I'm not sure that it's one the powers that be really want.
How many celebs are going to put themselves forward to know they are unpopular in a public vote when their entire career is built on the reverse? It's easy to maintain the fiction with the unsafe middle/people think you are safe mantra. Slightly less easy when you've plunged from third to bottom on a no one likes you vote - but hey, come back next week and try again.
When it comes down to it, if people are voting for the bottom of the leaderboard it's because they want to. If the majority of voters/viewers want to see the less able progress then that's what keeps them watching. Turning it into a procession could mean that they get fed up.
Usually, common sense kicks in when it gets to the pointy end after a shock boot anyway - unless you discount series one, obviously.
I know they are well intended, but the BBC aren't ever going to seize on any well thought out intelligent suggestions for alterations to the show, posted on here.
They are completely happy with this "micro managed" show and nothing is going to change.
They took long enough to dump Bruce. Given the nature of the man, he was going nowhere, he'd made increasing demands of the BBC over the last few years and they just "rolled over" as they were worried about ratings. Complaints about his deteriorating performances on here, or anywhere else, would have fallen on deaf ears.
Then what happened?
He threw in a couple of "sickies" in the last series and it didn't make a blind bit of difference to the ratings.
Armed with that, he was gone for this series, with just a couple of "specials" to lessen the blow.
Of course, he was allowed to say he was retiring, but I don't reckon he had any choice.
That's "show business."
They are completely happy with this "micro managed" show and nothing is going to change.
They took long enough to dump Bruce. Given the nature of the man, he was going nowhere, he'd made increasing demands of the BBC over the last few years and they just "rolled over" as they were worried about ratings. Complaints about his deteriorating performances on here, or anywhere else, would have fallen on deaf ears.
Then what happened?
He threw in a couple of "sickies" in the last series and it didn't make a blind bit of difference to the ratings.
Armed with that, he was gone for this series, with just a couple of "specials" to lessen the blow.
Of course, he was allowed to say he was retiring, but I don't reckon he had any choice.
That's "show business."
Originally Posted by holly berry:
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
This. Vote to evict is one of the reasons the latest series of Big Brother was horrible.
Originally Posted by Stuart25:
“This. Vote to evict is one of the reasons the latest series of Big Brother was horrible.”
“This. Vote to evict is one of the reasons the latest series of Big Brother was horrible.”
No,the reason BB was "horrible" was down to the appalling "contestants"....
No...but I think it would be fairer if voters had the choice to save or abandon. My guess is that it's deemed too confusing / complicated but I think we could handle it. I should add that, in addition, I would drop the DO but that's not gonna happen either.
There's this belief that voting to save is positive and voting to abandon is negative. To my way of thinking, however, vote-to-save is negative for all the couples you don't vote for. So, in a sense, it's more negative than vote-to-abandon unless you vote for most of the couples.
Incidentally comparisons with BB are of limited value because most BB eliminations involve only a subset of contestants whereas everyone is 'up' every week on Strictly.
There's this belief that voting to save is positive and voting to abandon is negative. To my way of thinking, however, vote-to-save is negative for all the couples you don't vote for. So, in a sense, it's more negative than vote-to-abandon unless you vote for most of the couples.
Incidentally comparisons with BB are of limited value because most BB eliminations involve only a subset of contestants whereas everyone is 'up' every week on Strictly.
Originally Posted by holly berry:
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
I agree. There's a difference between NOT getting the votes that mean you leave, and getting "out" votes.
Doubltess it might mean that bad dancers leave earlier, but part of the charm of SCD is the Persistant Duffer
Thing is, if you had a vote to evict then the likes of Pixie, Simon, Mark would be out very early and then there would still be complaints. I couldn't see the likes of Jennifer, Tim, or even Judy getting any votes to evict therefore people would still just moan about it because Jennifer, Tim and Judy would still be in
Originally Posted by Liam1999:
“Thing is, if you had a vote to evict then the likes of Pixie, Simon, Mark would be out very early and then there would still be complaints. I couldn't see the likes of Jennifer, Tim, or even Judy getting any votes to evict therefore people would still just moan about it because Jennifer, Tim and Judy would still be in”
“Thing is, if you had a vote to evict then the likes of Pixie, Simon, Mark would be out very early and then there would still be complaints. I couldn't see the likes of Jennifer, Tim, or even Judy getting any votes to evict therefore people would still just moan about it because Jennifer, Tim and Judy would still be in”
Under the radar is worse than ringer!
Originally Posted by holly berry:
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
“No, it would change the dynamic of Strictly and make it meaner without adding anything of value.”
Totally agree. It would make it too negative.
Originally Posted by Spin turn:
“Totally agree. It would make it too negative.”
“Totally agree. It would make it too negative.”
Like I say, I really can't see celebs queuing up to be told how unpopular they are of a Saturday night. I imagine their PR peeps and media gurus would be reversing faster than Father Jack at the sight of a nun.
It is far better to keep the dancers people like rather than throw out the people who are singled out by the media as people who have to go. Tactical voting could easily kick out the best and most popular dancer. Political voting could target celebs or pros. We would end up with the 4 celebrities at the end who attracted the least attention and were the least interesting.
The only thing that would make it fairer would be to have a safe zone of contestants that were in the top 6/5/3 or whatever.
Pros of this being you don't have to bother voting for the top ones which means people are more likely to vote for those in the middle slots as they are now essentially the top scorers of those up for the vote and as the numbers dwindle people do tend to abandon the duffers, so a safe zone at the top would create that situation earlier.
Downsides would be that the judges could manipulate who's in the safe zone, or it would be the same ones every week and then the public may not connect with the better dancers and someone middling might win as the public have connected and fought for them.
I like the status Quo. It's positive for everyone and the public always abandon the weaker dancers in the end, so it works itself out.
Interesting though when you remember Abbey Clancy was nearly out herself then went on to win.
Pros of this being you don't have to bother voting for the top ones which means people are more likely to vote for those in the middle slots as they are now essentially the top scorers of those up for the vote and as the numbers dwindle people do tend to abandon the duffers, so a safe zone at the top would create that situation earlier.
Downsides would be that the judges could manipulate who's in the safe zone, or it would be the same ones every week and then the public may not connect with the better dancers and someone middling might win as the public have connected and fought for them.
I like the status Quo. It's positive for everyone and the public always abandon the weaker dancers in the end, so it works itself out.
Interesting though when you remember Abbey Clancy was nearly out herself then went on to win.
Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part 
Alesha and Abbey are EXCEPTIONS to the cause though. I don't think that this will ever be repeated on the woman side for a long time...
Originally Posted by Smokeychan1:
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part”
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part
”
Not at all. A lot of people wanted her out and were fed up with her towards the end of the series.
Originally Posted by Smokeychan1:
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part”
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part
”
Originally Posted by Smokeychan1:
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part”
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part
”
<grasps cardi>
I think the not voting for certain couples could backfire in the long run. This is when the fanbases and voting habits start. Getting into the habit of not voting for a couple could be a bad thing.
Have to say, the easiest way to sort it out would be to avoid the ties on the leaderboard, because then the top couples are protected at this point anyway, regardless of voting or not. The fact the Powers that Be are happy to keep multiple ties - which would be easy enough to sort out - and allow shock bottom twos suggest they are happy enough with how it pans out year on year.
Originally Posted by Smokeychan1:
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part”
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part
”
Why would Natalie G?
Originally Posted by Smokeychan1:
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part”
“Crikey can you imagine if it were a vote to evict? Natalie G would have been out first week there was a vote and Ann Widdicombe would probably have won the year she took part
”
Whilst I think it is possible that Natalie may indeed have been out before her time (although not first week as I'm presuming this vote to evict would still have been a combined vote), I can't agree about La Widdecombe.
She inspires such loathing in so many people, I think she'd have had people attempting to vote to evict her even before the launch show.
1 of 2
