Artists perceived as popular and therefore assumed 'safe' seem to be at greater risk of going under this current system than novelty acts who people lend their vote to assuming that if they didn't they'd be out. I think a vote to eliminate, rather than voting for your favourite and switching for the final, might help with this problem. It would undermine the whole 'they've been nasty to him, I'm going to vote for him to show them' constituency that always seems to be fairly strong and also maybe in turn protect some of the more plausible winners from early exists as they fall victim to everyone assuming they're not going so they should instead lend their vote elsewhere.
I know it's difficult to make comparisons to other reality shows with the public vote but Big Brother in days of 'vote to eliminate' would often lose the most interesting housemates early on and that only changed once they switch to a 'vote to save'. Maybe changing it in the opposite direction might help this show?
I know it's difficult to make comparisons to other reality shows with the public vote but Big Brother in days of 'vote to eliminate' would often lose the most interesting housemates early on and that only changed once they switch to a 'vote to save'. Maybe changing it in the opposite direction might help this show?