I would think 64% is very unlikely

If they released the voting figures, it might show how some celebrities are relatively quite unpopular. It's a different matter being considered a poor dancer, but it would be particularly galling if there was a huge disparity in the numbers of votes, for someone who in the judges' opinion danced well, but was obviously not liked by the public.

This would be embarrassing for both that person and the BBC.

It might also deter future contestants from signing up.

Not giving the figures is a sensible policy.

A "popularity table," isn't a good idea.

I dont know why Strictly havent said who is 2nd and 3rd since changing to 4 couples in the final. DWTS have 4 in the final these days and they know who was 3rd and 2nd why cant we do it the same way? I think it is rude to not know who came 2nd and 3rd as someone who has had their fave get into the final the last 2 years and vote every week the least that could be done in politness of the viwers that voted would be to say who came 2nd and 3rd. Am i the only one who thinks this BTW?

Totally agree. We pay the license fee and we vote, yet we are not allowed to know after the event. Impact on the participants might be that they realize that they are not popular as they thought they were. If it's the truth, where is the harm?.

What Amazes me is BBC released SPOTY voting figures, all be it Gary Lineker,
must have done it with BBC's permission. How can they release for one event and not
for another one?.

Not really fussed..wanted frankie to win last year, she got joint runner up with simon 3- times bottom 2 webbe....
But he was better than her on the night and could have crept into second....didn't want to hear that!

Because it's an honour to be put on the SPOTY list - BBC doesn't have to persuade anyone to be nominated.

Once you're on the List, you don't have to work hard for weeks.

There's not the same thing.

Maybe we should all day who we voted for how many times and then we should be able to figure it out for ourselves

I would love to know how far in the lead Jay actually was.

They don't, it'll be speculation like it is every year. The only time they've mentioned anything resembling "accurate" figures over the years was in Darren Gough's autobiography when he put something about Colin and Erin's showdance not being the reason for him not winning but that the votes - which took place all week in those days - had been whatever amount in his favour. And even that I take with a pinch of salt.


It's been mentioned quite a few times in the thread already how.

I don't suppose my 3,926 votes for aliona and jay had anything to do with the final outcome...

I think they might be citing the poll I ran on my website during the final asking people who they wanted to win. Jay won that with 64%, Kellie 21% and Georgia 14%. Katie and Anton had 10% before they were removed in 4th place.

Of course that only had just over 1150 votes so isn't a large sample size and won't be fully representative of Strictly's audience or the final vote.

Since the BBC consider viewer votes to be subject to the official secrets act polls are all people have to go on though

I wonder if any of the celebs over the years have asked after the show is over, just to satisfy their curiosity, who came in second and who came in third... and if they have asked, if the question was ever answered.

As Young Mr Grace might say.

"You all did very well!"

I think that's what's more important, than deciding which of the last three were best.

I think it's stupid not to reveal the percentages relating to public popularity -- after all that is a large part of the deciding factor keeping any celebrity in the contest and they need to be informed if it's a weak point so that they can take appropriate action in the same way that they need to pay attention to any criticism from the judges, otherwise they might just as well keep the judges' scores and comments secret too!

As for the issue of commercial confidentiality -- that's obviously just a load of obfuscation and dingo droppings from anally retentive Beeb execs.

We've done this before.

If you were a celebrity dancer and you got "naff-all" votes, you'd feel very uncomfortable. The possibility of this happening might dissuade future contestants from appearing in this show. I think the BBC find it hard enough to get reasonably well known people to appear, as it is.

If it were possible for entertainers to find a way to make themselves instantly more popular with the public, if you could bottle it, you could make a fortune.

Without the individual figures being published, just the order, it doesn't reveal whether it was a "close run thing," or "run away victory." So no one need feel embarrassed for not being at all popular with the public, if that were the case.

A sensible decision by the BBC, in my opinion, as it's really mostly an entertainment show.

True and I agree.

I still would love to know the %. And also who was 2nd and 3rd of the voting public.

I'm not really that bothered, as I said before, "I think they all did very well!"

I could hardly disagree more -- at least you'd know where you stood with the GBP and could decide whether you stood a chance upping your media game just as a mouthful of Craig criticism and a three paddle could spur you to do better. DWTS and XFactor are much more honest and publish the public votes.

If you are going to make public popularity a major factor in determining the outcome, maybe celebs should be filtered according to their Twitter and Facebook following to provide a more level playing field. Christopher Parker had a huge Eastenders following and almost finished first despite being an appalling dancer who hardly improved at all throughout his "journey" -- he was hardly any better than David "Mahogany" Dickinson who was rightly out early in Series !

At least they should publish the public vote leaderboard positions.

Don't agree at all.

Have never, ever watched EastEnders, but thought Christopher Parker was very entertaining as he was SO enthusiastic - Jeremy was popular for similar reasons.

Remember there were only 8 celebrities in the first Series - should think Chris wouldn't have lasted to the end with 15 as there are now.

Strictly is half a popularity contest - public vote - and half a vote on dance skills and performance - judges.

It isn't Come Dancing - that died years ago!

Doghouse Riley has explained it perfectly well

Know it's not done to quote your own post, but takes too long to say it all again.

Strictly isn't the same as X-Factor or IACGMOH.

BBC needs to attract a variety of different types of celebrity to attract a good audience to its main Saturday evening family entertainment show

(Sorry, won't let me multi-quote)

Jamelia was devastated to be in the D/O so many times.

How would she have felt if it was revealed she only got 100 votes or something like that ?

Exactly!

Some people are failing to grasp that this is really just an enjoyable entertainment show.
I mean in the end, does it really matter who won out of the last three and by how many votes?

Hopefully she would have cheered up on finding that three of them were mine.

I think one reason they don't give vote ranking might be because it could be hugely dispiriting and de-motivating for a talented, hard-working but less-than-popular dancer to find out that s/he was pulling fewer votes than a Widdy.

If I'd just spent 10 weeks working a bollock off to find out that John Sergeant got more votes, I'd find it had to stick on a smile, ignore the blisters and squeeze a few hours of late night training in after spending all day working.

But yeah- I'd love to know who came 2nd in the final.

deleted

Can't see the problem with releasing the votes from the previous series at the start of the new series. It's not as if it is going to be relevant at that point.

The reason that is being used by the BBC isn't valid enough in my opinion.