I think that sum up how it work. For those who mentioned earlier that the public vote decided, the answer is NO. The result was decided by 50% judges and 50% public vote.

No. Because all of the judges contributed to the totals, they all had an effect on the result. If you change what Bruno did, the result changes, but that also happens if you change what other judges did.

For the last f***ing time...

That would have meant that it was theoretically possible (as SCD_Dave & I have already stated) for a couple to win SCD without winning the public vote (and impossible for their competitors in the head-to-head to win under any circumstances). If Colin could have won by merely coming top with the judges and second in the public vote, then what would be the point of anyone voting after Zoe had gone?

I think it's a risk they have to take. As I say, in five out of six cases the public vote winner wins. In five out of six cases, the bottom of the public vote is out first.

I'd ask you to think about it too. If there is only one scenario in six where the judges votes affect the outcome in any way, if there is only one in six where the audience favourite doesn't win (the one we have if Colin had won the judges vote) AND if, in this scenario, we in stead go with your suggestion that the final two becomes solely about who wins the audience vote this means that the judges votes have no relevance WHATSOEVER in the final. It means in every case, the winner is always the winner of the public vote, and makes the judges redundant for the entire final.

Your scenario robs them of any power at all (In which case, the BBC are actually lying when they say the judges votes make up half the marks), which makes them marking the dances in the whole of the final irrelevant. And given that, why wouldn't they just say - 'the judges won't be marking tonight, tonight's final is decided by you, the viewer'.

The suggestion that it becomes purely about the viewer vote for the last two makes no sense on a mathematical or logical level, I'm afraid.

None whatsoever. I suspect when devising the show, they considered such a possibility unlikely (and may feel the need to revise the voting pattern as a result), because it is only a one in six chance. I still think it's more likely than rendering the judges' voting completely useless.

The fact that it would be useless to vote in that scenario doesn't mean they'd have made it explicit, and doesn't mean that people wouldn't still vote (not everyone would have done the maths on the totals and realise the irrelevance of the vote - and as this thread has made clear, the explanation is unclear anyway, and people might still feel they had a chance).

What, so they'd stop the telephone vote (as otherwise they would be at risk of a fraud suit)? I don'[t thik so.


Which is exactly what happened in series 1, so it's not like there isn't any precedence.


No they are not lying. Whether or not they are lying is a very precise thing. That the judges votes make half the marks is true. That the viewer vote decides in the event of a tie is true. They don't spell out the consequences of that, but they don't lie. Whereas "they need your vote to win" would be a lie under certain scenarios. Lying when millions of pounds are involved is not a great plan.


Again, the S1 precendent (this exact point was brought up in an interview) was "No, at the end of the day the judges score won't decide the result. But they give an indication of who the judges thought should win, and by how much".


The suggestion that it becomes purely about the judges vote for the last two makes no sense on a mathematical or logical level, I'm afraid.

Not that the situations are strictly parallel. Because only one involves the BBC lying after getting people to spend millions of pounds.