With criticism year on year that poor dancers stay at the expense of better dancers, isn't it time viewers voted for the least favourite? It is all very well having a favourite such as Ed Balls, Anne Widdecombe etc, but if you had to choose whom you think should go, I think it'd be difficult to cast your vote for someone who was good. In effect, you'd be encouraging the good dancers to be eliminated, and sub consciously, that might make people think twice.
Of course, there's no right and wrong when choosing a fave, but would we really want a final with Ed Balls in it? Would viewers want him there t the expense of Ore? Just wondering...

I'd take Ed in the final over Ore every day.

At least this would provide the definitive answer to the question if Strictly voting is racist

The one change ai would make to the show is a bit on the voting.

I think the top 5 or top 50% in the judging points should be given immunity.


It would make:-
The public vote on really who is at risk.
It would cut shock good dancer exits.
It would make dancers abide by rules more and not play on comedy but skill.

Quite often there is a good dancer who everyone thinks us safe but ends up in the dance off.

So at least in the early weeks when we gave a lot of dancers, let the top judges score dancers go straight through, and let us vote on say the 7/8 bottom dancers only.

It would also cut any debate on racism etc...

It's not Big Brother. Almost all succesful public vote reality shows have a vote to "keep in" because it's more good natured and positive, and a better way of ensuring that there's people on the show that the audience actively wants to see, rather than just "doesn't mind".

Careful, now!

A vote for least favourite feels very negative in what is meant to be a feel good show.

I imagine there would be a greater risk of tactical voting to eliminate dancers that fans saw as a "threat" to their favourite too.

Oooh, that means I could vote to get rid of Danny and Louise then

Exactly what I was thinking!

No, no, no. Makes the whole thing far too negative for a light entertainment show such as Strictly.

Leave it to the monsters such as Big Brother.

let's give the thumbs down and the loser goes to the lions. (Ñot a pub in Grimsby)

I don't know, I'd find it pretty easy to vote out Danny - I find him fairly boring and don't really care if he stays or not!

i would rather the results were given in order so we could see who won every week and who lost and in the bottom two. I wonder if they do give the winner first when the tell the results

There are a lot of dangers when using 'out' votes. Political voting could be orchestrated in the media or between rivals of the best dancers. Most celebs would try to stay anonymous so that nobody notices them and nobody votes them out. Celebs might not want to join a show that constantly looks for the worst in the dancing rather than the best.

If you left it entirely to the public, someone like John Sargent would have won.

The judges steer the voting so we at least get some dancers in the final. Then it really doesn't matter who wins.

There would be too much risk of people voting for good dancers to leave because they were a threat to their favourite (or smug or whatever...) so the results would probably end up even more weird than they can be now. Celebs would probably be more reluctant to go on a show where they could end up in the bottom two without the excuse of 'they thought you were safe' it would actually be 'people dislike you enough to actively want you to leave'.

I also hate the idea of giving anyone at the top of the board immunity. The judges already do enough over marking to keep unpopular people as safe as possible. If they could ensure they had immunity there's too much scope for manipulation and consequent annoyance for the viewers.

BIB I agree, it takes away the enjoyment of what is meant to be a happy show ( even if, as we know, it's not all sweetness and light )

Agree with all of this - especially the idea of allowing the top couples to be immune for a week. That would leave the show open to all kinds of manipulation and probably a drop in voting when people realised there was no way to save their favourite couple.

The trouble with that is it means the judges would be in control of the voting.They would mark the better dancers highly and the weaker ones
Strictly isn't just about the better dancers.
So we would not see the weaker ones improving because they would all go early on.

Pixie's the only person to have gone out from the top half of the leaderboard in the last five series. It'd be a massive change that would stoke up a great deal of resentment against the better dancers, for pretty much no reason.

This. and it should definitely stay that way imo.

I have an idea.
Why not have a 6 chair challenge as they do on X factor. ??
interactive of course . Thumbs up or down whilst sitting in our living rooms
Great fun that.
Of course I always enjoyed the Christians v The lions films based in Roman times.

I wouldn't vote. Seems vindictive tbh. However, it would probably not work the way you think. Ore and Danny (in that order, ha) are arguably the best two. Thus, you get one out the other has a better shot. Team Danny would turn on Ore (see posts all over the forum) and vice versa.

Agree. It's not BB. It would make a very uncomfortable interview on ITT with the losing couple with them knowing the public don't want them in the competition. Strictly is not about that.
As others have said, it could lead to fans of one couple voting en masse to elimate a rival couple.

Me too.

I would have no problem with that, I would have no problem with him winning it, as long as he is a better dancer at the end than he was at the beginning. It's not like this is members of the general public and getting a job at the end of it. They are doing it to learn to dance, and if they do and the public like them they should stay in as long as they can.