How can it be fair when the richest could be phoning around the clock. They should wait until each couple have finished their routines on Saturday.

I know the money is going to charity, but if they want people to vote all week, they should make those votes for a separate prize...like say best overall couple so far

Its a very good point, and another thing could be that for example, More Colin/Erin and Darren/Lilia votes could have happened tonight after there interviews on ITT. and say one week, one of the couples doesnt get invited in. That could defenatly effect the voting

I agree that being able to vote all week is in principle unfair as we are supposed to be voting on performance - but as it is all in the name of charity surely that overrides any arguments!
When is being a child or for that matter adult in need fair?

Yes, we are supposed to vote on performance or so they tell us ..then they open the lines as soon as the results show is over ... crazy

Who's to say that isn't what the votes are for now?

We can vote for whatever reason we want, and I certainly don't vote for who is best on the night, because it eliminates someone from the whole contest, even if it was just an odd "off" might. It makes much more sense to vote for who you enjoy most overall and most want to see more of.

I agree completely that the all week voting is not in the spirit of judging based on the nightly performance I feel that voting should begin when the dancers have finshed for the first show and close just before the results like in most other shows of this type all week voting makes it a popularity contest not a dance contest.

The only important thing is raising money for charity. Seriously, is it really the end of the world if James gets through next week?

Got to agree here. The way it operates at present makes the judges almost superfluous.

If it was all being done in the name of charity then why have the judges at all, in fact why have the dancing? Why not just have a dozen famous people being intereviewed and the viewers vote for the one they like best?

It just makes a mockery of the dancing I feel. What is the point of slogging your guts out all week to try and be the best dancer (whether artistically or technically) if it's all down to personality?

The bottom line is, the organizers encourage people to vote all week because it puts more money in their coffers. Thus, the more money we contribute by voting, the bigger the amount that goes to charity.

My question is, then: are we purely voting for the couple we think are the best dancers - or just providing money for charity each time we vote - or can we do both?

There was no way that Zoe and Ian should have been in the bottom two last Saturday.

No, it doesn't. Almost half of the final score comes from them. (I say "almost" because I think the public counts more if there's a tie.)

All-week voting doesn't have to be "all down to personality".

It just doesn't have to be only about the one night's performance.

I think that's a good thing. I don't think someone should be eliminated just because they have an "off" night, for example, and I can vote accordingly.

Not the end of the world, exactly, but the couple who have to make way wouldn't be too chuffed.

As said hardly the end of the world the 'voting descrepencies' of the public and the judges, and let us remember the winners each time have actually been the best dancers. Yes there have been public mistakes, but in some ways this is good as the charities gain more if people vote cos they know so and so is rubbish but still want him/her to win so they vote more and Brucie and (WHAT is that womans name, I get a complete blank when I am on here) do urge us to vote for our favourite, NOT the best dancers.

I think the benefits to charity and the nature of the competition do exceed the possibilities of bad decisions.

It's not just because it's charity that it operates like this though, don't forget that Strictly Dance Fever had through the week voting, as did both the ordinary Fame Accademies - none of which were for charity.
I think it's just more that it's the way the Beeb works!

There is nothing wrong with the way that SCD is currently being run.

SCD is NOT all about the dancing, if it were then it would be labelled an BBC ARTS programme.

It is labelled as an BBC ENTERTAINMENT programme.

Obviously given the amount of work the professionals (and celebrities) put in then it is only right that good dancing performances should be rewarded, hence the role of the judges and their marks counting for half of the overall total.

Equally people like myself with no real knowledge of dance steps are perfectly entitled to vote for whoever ENTERTAINED them the most.

If as some suggest we should just follow what the judges say, what would be the point of having a public vote at all.

And unlike the biased judges I vote without preconceived opinions.

Hence week 1 I voted for Karen and Bill because their hat-swapping routine was easily the most entertaining.

Another week I voted for Camilla as her routine where she was James' puppet was the most original.

On Saturday I voted for Erin because both her routines were delightful.

Simply voting off the worst dancer each week according to the biased judges would ruin the programme.

The public are perfectly entitled to their own opinions.

I agree entirely, this is exactly the point I made in other threads.

It is a major flaw in the competion, and it's about time it was addressed.

Next saturdays winner could well be decided before it even starts, which makes a mockery of all the hard work put in by the pros and amateurs.

I think all week voting is unfair, especially when you have not seen the couples dance before saturday night. The only good thing about all week voting is that it raises more money for CIN.

Next time SCD comes to our screens voting should only be on the Saturday after the couples have danced.