As everything is public vote, without any scoring contribution from the judges, constantly really good singers go. Especially now it's a double elimination all the time. On Strictly sometimes there's a surprise and sometimes good dancers do end up in the bottom two but generally the good performers are safe if they achieve high judges' scores.

On X Factor, whilst sometimes bad singers do go (Bupsi) all to often it's good singers/acts who leave the competition because the public vote doesn't discriminate between a good and a crap performance. It's often down to who the public find cuter or funnier or interesting than someone else. There's also a chance that people won't vote for those who they think are safe and because there's no Judge's rating contribution, by definition it often leaves the better artists hung out to dry as people back the underdog.

I don't think losing good acts as they have for the first two weeks so far is going to do the competition or the show much good.

unless you are their favourite.

Tonights results show that the public could'nt care less who the best singers are, they just vote for who they think are the nicest people which renders the whole thing a farce.

If they were that good, they'd get the votes.

The public vote for who they want to see back next week. The majority wanted to see the other nine back more than Mason and Seann. How does putting a system in place, to keep them in over the 'lesser' acts, make for a better show? Clearly the public don't care for them at all, thus keeping them over those that are liked, would lose viewers, no?

Not necessarily at all. If the public think an act is safe because they've put on a good performance then they might well decide not to 'waste' their vote on someone they perceive as safe but instead vote for someone they feel might not be, an underdog perhaps.

Of course some people do vote for their favourites but the 'I hope he doesn't go, I like him' sympathy vote after someone's had a poor week and/or been lampooned by the judges I'd imagine plays a significant role too.

too true. the unpopular acts go and the publics faves remain. isnt that how its supposed to work.

But 'unpopular' could often mean that everyone thought their performance was so good that nobody felt it worth voting for them because they'd assumed everyone else will do anyway.

The best performers every week are probably more at risk than the average ones because a lot of people aren't going to want to vote for someone who they perceive to be safe and would rather try and save someone else they think might not be.

If it was a 'vote to eliminate' rather than 'vote to save' I think the better artists would go a lot further in the show.

That's where the judges are suppose to come in and save the talent (the sing off). If they don't, that's a flaw in the show, not the public vote.

Giving Simon Cowell 50% power in the vote? He already has too much power as it is!

Let's see what the situation is in 12 months time and see how this years batch of contestants have fared.

I still have a gut feeling Seann will be more successful than half the contestants still in the competition right now, this time next year. The public vote is all bollocks - this is the same public vote that gave us the joys of Leon Jackson and the entire final 5 in 2012.

I'm almost sure there will be record execs tonight wanting to hold meetings with Seann in the coming days to discuss his future and where he'd like to take it.

There no doubting who can & cannot sing, but I only vote for acts I like the sound of or acts that I would likely to buy records from should they sign for a label. I voted for Max as he is attempting something different for the show, I also voted for Reggie & Bollie as I love the Reggae feel to them. I didn't vote for Keira as I see her as a poor man's Beyonce or a poundland version of Fleur, she doesn't suit my tastes so I didn't vote for her.