So Georgina went out, presumably the "soap vote" was nullified by true dance fans finally getting round to actually voting.

But we don't know. The BBC don't publish the voting figures for each competitor, but why not?
These votes represent a lot of money contributed by the viewing public.
The BBC is publicly owned body and thus should be accountable.
Not divulging the figures can lead to suspicions of a "fix."

It is patently obvious there's "interference" in the selection of music, some of which no self respecting professional would normally "not been seen dead dancing to."

Some judges deliberately trying to influence the public vote towards particular contestants.
The inclusion of pop singers in a ballroom dance programme.

All these things underscore the reality that higher "ratings" hopefully achieved by appealing to a wider audience to the detriment of the programme, is the BBC's no1 priority.
Is it "fixed?" The BBC will say no.

OK we'll believe you if you publish the public voting figures.

here here here

Mmm, I agree with you to an extent. They should publish the voting figures after the show finishes, independently audited of course, but if they published them during the show it would alter the dancer's behaviour and there would be too much 'spin' involved. Example: Patsy Palmer says she's not bovvered one week, then claims to be very dedicated the following week. They could look at the voting figures and work out which strategy plays best with the audience and then behave accordingly.

That's just an example of what could happen, obviously! I'm not saying that Patsy would ever do anything of the kind!

They will never release the vote figures for any of these types of shows as it would take away the suspense factor and damage ratings. Because we have that unknown that we don't truly know who the public are voting for, that allows 'shocks' like Spoony and Ola to happen. Perhaps if we'd seen the voting figures the week before it wouldn't have been such a surprise.

Any true dance fan would not have voted for Jan over Georgina out based on tonights performance.

As for the music choices well they are mainly songs that have been used on SCD's worldwide but on some occasions the band do a better job in making it sound more suited to the type of dance. I have seen Money Money Money by Abba make a fantastic Tango. It could also be due to poor choereography by the pro.

Fix? I'm not sure, a lot of people on this forum wanted Georgina out and while it is not representative of the voting public it is a percentage of it. I'd say a lot of the general public and their voting reasons are just rubbish really because it's obvious people are not always voting on dancing. Look at those older ladies drooling over Mark because he is shy and broody, that's definitely got him a few votes.

The fix would lie in pushing forward people that the public will buy into like Darren last year.

Anyone who actually believes this show is not fixed is being completely naive. It's been fixed since the first series, difference being that this time it's so much more obvious. Do you really think they are going to abide by what the phone vote is? They don't publish it so how do we know who gets what?

You know, we can probably request the voting figures under the freedom of information act

I thought that legally if there is public money involved then there has to be an independent adjudicator to ensure it is fair BUT there is no rule that says they have to make the voting results public. If it was fixed and always had been it would have been in the papers long before now...

I've not suggested they publish the voting figures during the show.
Any time after the loser has been announced will do.

The've got another six days before the next programme.

"In your own time."

It aint "rocket salad" is it?

So who's the independant adjudicator? Have they even mentioned this ever?

Your last statement about how it would have been in the papers by now if it was fixed just proves my point about people being naive. I'm not having a go at you just saying that believe me there is more kept out of the papers than is ever printed.

I don't think they should. I remember that long after American Idol 2 had finished, Nigel Lythgoe said that Clay Aiken was so far ahead every week that it would have put everyone else off voting because there was no point in it.

I see no problem in releasing them once the season is over, but the producers won't want to risk a dip in revenue if something like that happened because one/a few couples had the most votes each week (if that makes sense. Sorry.)

I'm sorry, I think I didn't make my meaning clear. I meant to say during the series as opposed to during each individual show. In my opinion there would be too much spin if the figures were published at any time during the series. However, I wonder how quickly a person could get the voting figures under the freedom of information act? Would it be possible to get them during the following week, or would it take months? It could be that you could find out the voting figures quite easily.

And I have more 'confidence' in the press wanting that huge story to care about anything else. Most of the tabloids would not give a flying monkeys about exposing the BBC in such a manner. In fact, they would absolutely delight in a huge story which would make their sales go through the roof. One of the beeb's biggest shows in years fixed? The first whiff of that story would have every tabloid editor salivating.

If it was fixed and someone was to prove it the BBC could be sued to high heaven.

Am I reading this right - cries of 'fix', 'interference', demanding publication and independent adjudication - this is a saturday evening light entertainment programme and much as I said this time time last week - if you don't like it and it fails to meet the sort of crtieria normally reserved for elections in democratic nations - then don't watch it.

That situation won't arise here because when it gets down to a handful there's not a lot to chose from and in any event they are voting to keep someone "in" so it hardly matters who gets the most votes each week until the final when there's going to be three couples in it anyway.

It's still only 50% of the vote, so there's any number of permutations possible.
Last edited by Doghouse Riley : 28-10-2006 at 23:08

i wouldnt want to know....i think it'd ruin the surprise of it all...results would be easier to predict....

and call me naive but i can't imagine for one moment that the results would be fixed....the results aren't tallyed by the BBC

Why do you think the BBC employ PR people and lawyers?

I am slightly confused at just one line:

That wouldn't help them very much if it did leak out that it was fixed. Pretty much anyone who had ever paid money to vote could sue - as could anyone involved!

I honestly thinking fixing it is MUCH more trouble than it's worth.

Here is the BBC site about making a Freedom of Information request:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/foirequest.shtml

They reckon they should handle all such requests within 20 working days. The only way around it that I can see is that they don't have to disclose commercially sensitive information. If they can prove that voting figures are commercially sensitive, then they wouldn't have to disclose them. However, they should be able to tell you all the details of how the figures are adjudicated and audited, and who performs those functions for them.

You've missed my point. The BBC employ PR people and lawyers to PREVENT it leaking.

I think that when it comes down to it if the person with the lowest votes is not someone the producers want to see leave just yet, then they will override that decision and they probably think they are doing it for the good of the programme because when it comes down to it or they are concerned about is ratings.

Do you think it's possible that the judges have been told to become more controversial to make headline news and thus win viewers from ITV. Non STD people must become curious with newspaper articles......Spoony's surprise eviction last week, judges arguing etc etc.......it might make people tune in to see what the headlines are all about!!!

Sorry but you've just committed the cardinal sin on a message board. You've told other people what you think they should do.

Behave!

If there is public money and charitable donation involved then of course it should have fair, free and transparent voting processes. It's unreasonable to suggest that where a public body and money are concerned we should just let them get on with it because it's only Saturday night television. I'm personally against certain aspects of publishing the voting figures but I absolutely defend any license-fee-payer or voter's right to demand to see where their money is going and how it is distributed.

And of course their right to choose whether to watch said programme that their license fee is going towards, whether they like it or not.
Last edited by xadie : 28-10-2006 at 23:30

I totally agree, the judges are practically pantomime villains anyway. They're just battling out with Simon Cowell over who can be the harshest/ most controversial.

About the suggstion of a fix. A lot of people forget that at the end of the day SCD is for CIN. It's not likely that the BBC would risk a 'massive' fall from grace and major unwanted press exposure by fiddling the results on a family entertainment dancing show, just to keep a couple in a few more weeks. When in reality it's all about raising money for charity. Think about it.

Releasing voting figures could resolve this but during the show it could be very detrimental. Both to the voters and the couples. It would be horrible for tye couples to find out the differences in the scores especially if fewer people voted for them. As it is now, every couple can believe that the same number of people voted for them as opposed to being unpopular to the public by a long way.