And the funny thing ... as yet John has not been in the bottom 2 as many times as Kate was (if he is there on Saturday he will draw level) - nor has he lasted as long as Kenny did (2 more weeks to go before he can finish in 5th place).

I have another idea -- rename Greenwich Mean Time as

Craig and Arlene Mean Time

And Bruno could have his own version of Chico Time

Sorry but I don't agree with this.

Why bother with the public vote then?

Eventually I can see them scrapping it all together and calling the show 'Come Dancing with your favourite celebrities.'

Len just told me,
if a dancer forgets 3 heel leads he is evicted.

Great idea - I hope it's true, but we all know better than to believe everything we read in newspapers - ANY newspapers!

So it wouldn't "completely negate any purpose of a public vote at all". It would, at most, do it in such weeks.


The same rules would apply to all of the contestants, so what would be "unfair"?


That's wrong about both. The judges do not mark only on the technical dancing side, and the public can vote however they want. They don't have to vote "on the light entertainment side". I certainly don't.


If they took improvement into account, the marking would become even more subjective than it is now.

It would also encourage gameplans in which celebs pretend to be worse than they are at the start. And even if celebs don't actually do that, there will be plenty of accusations.

Good point. Then the whole issue of "what about the results show?" would crumble into dust. As would the idea that voting would be pointless in weeks when someone was "automatic".

I'm at a loss as to how that would affect the Johns of the competition.

Are they seriously telling us John would survive three weeks in the dance off?

It's a stupid idea that will not work.

A single judge could take a dislike to a couple and give them 1 point for 3 weeks running. This would almost certainly put them at the bottom of the table and out of the show.

Much as I like John, I felt he should have been out a couple of weeks ago, however, I accepted that the public had a right to vote however they saw fit. I don't believe the rules should be changed to the point that they overrule the public vote or what's the point in having the vote? And I don't want to be told my vote is worthless or how I should vote (and that's exactly what those supposed changes are saying) because I strongly believe I have the right to make my own decisions and that I have a right to freedom of choice.

As I've said before, if they want to change the rules, then either have the public vote worth no more than 25% of the contestants' overall scores, instead of the present 50%, or else have the public vote only between the four contestants who are bottom of the judges' leaderboard. With the latter option, at least I'd still feel I was making my own choice.

I read it to mean that if John, or someone like him, was at the bottom of the leaderboard after the judges marks, 3 weeks running, they would automatically be sent packing. It would mean that on that 3rd week no voting would be necessary, but as none of the voting money now goes to charity, I don't see that would matter. And it isn't likely to happen very often - maybe once in a series at absolute most.

That's all well & good, but the people wanting John to stay, for whatever reason, need to vote once. People that think that John deserves to go would have to vote for all the other dancers in the competition to cancel out one "John" vote, and let's face it, who in this current climate can afford to do that? Especially as the money doesn't go to charity anymore.

My suggestions, if it has to be changed, would either be as per memmh's suggestion, you vote for who you want to stay, but you only have the choice of the bottom 3 or 4 couples, or change it so that people vote for who they want to go, like on BB evictions.

Why don't they just get rid of the public vote so, if the judges want to maintain all the power? Who would bother voting when it will have no impact?

Well, probably - but at least you have a chance, nominal though it might be.

Reading this a bit more, it's just a proposal at the moment - in fact, it's likely been leaked simply to see how the public will react to that idea.

Not to blow my own trumpet or anything but those would seem to be the best two options. I was just about to add a suggestion about voting for who you want to go instead of who you want to keep in