I thought last year with Kate wassaname that there is an easy solution to this dancing vs popularity debate.

Obviously 'Strictly Come Dancing' is primarily a 'dancing' competition by definition

but including the public vote/opinion adds an important dimension without which it wouldn't be as "popular" as it is - again by definition

but we could all do without the controversy

the solution is to give the public slightly less influence (only 35% of the overall score)

this would ensure just as much public involvement - but would make it difficult for a poor dancer to unseat a better dancer

it's a shame that the public vote is not disclosed because i could run the numbers to see who would've been in the dance off but i feel quite sure John would've been out by now without all the problems that have arisen purely because the public have 'too much' influence on what is primary a dancing competition

.

25% Judges

75% Endemoniada

Sorted!!!!

Please can you vote for Jodie to win then .

Agree. Yes it is an entertainment show, with public participation. To make it more fair though the scoring should be more weighted in favour of the judges. The 75% 25% Ratio would seem about right to me.

80% judges

20% public.

Sorted!

If only life's that easy.

It was never 50/ 50 anyway as the if two couples got the same overall total then the judges vote saved the couple with the more votes

So it was always 49% judges 51% public

It's not obvious to many of us at all.

Yes the title includes the word dancing, but I don't see the word 'competition' mentioned anywhere.

Nor does the current format lend itself to a competition because the participants are of differing starting abilities, and the contest is being judged by an audience that does not possess an expert knowledge in the field.

Problem is there would be uproar if it was changed now, because its been the same for 6 series. I think the 65/35 split would be good, cos I wanna see good dancers when it gets to this stage in the competition. O well!

You could be right - and without the numbers the beeb have (public votes) it's difficult to know

but the basic principle of weighting it more towards dancing would prevent all this who-har whilst still retaining just as much public involvemnt/voting

the show need the public support (and the dough) but at the end of the day - Strictly is 'primarily' about dancing and the public just need to feel involved -somehow

.

To play devil's advocate, neither is Z-Factor called a competition, or American Idol (or Pop Idol). Yet, I am sure the four judges in the Z-Factor must be trying to tell their viewers that 'it's a singing competition'?

The judges don't agree on the best dancers anyway, their scores for one person/dance often differ widely. So I am not sure giving them even greater influence would make it fairer.

Difference is the winner will be expected to make some sort of career out of singing afterwards.

100% viewers. Sorted.

Or possibly ... the bottom couple on the Judge's leaderboard score automatically go into the dance-off - and the public vote for the couple to join them.

Would have much preferred a 3 couple final ... this could have been achieved by adding this week's scores to next week's ... so this week's dance scores would still be vital and count - but no one would be eliminated this week.

And the judges have also eliminated the less able before the contest begins in earnest.

Moreover, there is a major recording deal awaiting the winner of X-Factor, whereas the winner of Strictly merely goes back to their day job. So the contexts are very different.

I'm not against Strictly being turned into a dance competition, but it has to be done so properly or not at all.

Well can we just say that if a good dancer won, it wouldn't cause so much controvercy - so it makes sense to weight it slighty towards the dancing


I dont think so - the public vote is a secret anyway - the only difference would be a less controvertial outcome


I think it would make a difference for those same reasons

.

Not a bad idea so the judges leaderboard will give them a score of 1-16 and then the public vote could give a score of 0-8 with .5 increments!

If you give the judges more power I wonder how many of you will been moaning about them picking their favs

Its bad enough with overmarking as it is.

but neither of them would score john very highly let's be honest

and maybe he would've been out by now (fair n square) and not left in a difficult situation

.

No, if Strictly is going to be a serious competition, then nothing can be left to subjectivity.

The public vote would have to be removed entirely.

What they need to do if they want it to be a DANCING competition
is to get evenly matched couples.
The show started out to encourage more people to enjoy dancing
and to show it appeals to all ages.
Having said that, there are rows every year with people who have
been rumoured to have had some training in the past and other who haven't.
There are also rows every year about Judges favourites.

That's called "Britains Got Talent" aint it?

It's not got the same following and the winner might be a dancin border collie

.

But why should the goal posts be shifted to push someone like John out of the show?

If the format is going to be severely weighted against the likes of John, what is the point of them participating?

The only reason there is a 'difficult situation' in the first place, is because the judges and certain viewers and pros aren't getting their own way.

As far as I could see, there was no problem that needed resolving. John danced, he was scored and the public voted for him. Either let us vote for who we like for whatever reason we like, or remove that right altogether.

Irony is that this week after the scoring he wasn't very far adrift from the rest....

We've been there before with the original Come Dancing.