An idea to make it a majority vote, but still retain just four Judges
 

I'm not fussed either way, but it seems some obviously are - so I came up with this, and I think it'd be interesting

When it comes down to the Judges Vote in the Bottom Two, before any of the Judges vote - the act who received the fewest votes is revealed. This is the 'Publics Vote'. For example, say Wagner and Paije were in the Bottom Two - and Paije received the fewest votes - he would be the 'Publics Vote'. It would then be Paije 1 - 0 Wagner. The four Judges then make their decision as usual - but it means there is always a majority verdict, unless of course a Judge refuses to vote. And it would sort of make it fairer, as the publics decision really would be incorporated.

Thoughts?

Nah, I don't think that would be good because knowing who actually had the fewest votes, first off could influence the judges decision and secondly if the act who got fewest public votes gets through you'd have people whining about that being unfair too

Okay - flip it around then and have the 'Publics Decision' revealed last.

If that happens it's basically the same as what there is now, with the public vote deciding when there's a deadlock.

That's why I originally opted to have the 'Publics Decision' first - because it was too similar to what already happens.

That's how it is now:conf:

Yeah, that'd make more sense, there's just the issue of it influencing the judges votes. It's not a bad idea in theory but it could never really work I don't think, the best option is to leave it how it is.

I dont think this would work because people would still complain. I can just imagine it now.

Katie gets the least votes but the other act is sent home by the judges, everyone is still going to be "well its not fair she got the least votes"

You cant win. :bored:

If a judge refuses to vote, and the public vote then you are left with 4 votes. if it splits down the middle what happens then?

The public vote wins - they would essentially be 'Head Judge'.

But I agree with Jordan on his last point, really - I guess you can't win, Complainers will always find something to complain about.

I have the perfect solution - all the judges have to vote, or they're fired on the spot, live. :) If a judge has two acts in the bottom two, they should choose last.

There. Are there any flaws with that?

I like this idea better. It is afterall, what the judges are there for :)

Perfect.

Just get rid of Cheryl and bring in someone that will actually ****en vote

Can't get rid of Cheryl she is a great judge

That's a good idea actually. Perhaps they could call it ... I dunno ... Deadlock?

I can really see them using it. Send it in. Well done!

Are you being serious??? How the **** can she be a great judge when she wont even pick someone to leave

This is actually a good shout

Perhaps you shoud read Post #5 before you make sarcastic posts like that, eh? :pat:

I had read it act-ually, but I just wanted to be sarcastic because I like being sarcastic. :xyxwave:

Well you can't say they're complaining. You asked for our thoughts.

*actually

...either you're trolling then or you don't understand when it's appropriate to use sarcasm :pat:

I think if they has just let Cheryl vote last like they usually do then it would have all blown over. Producers would have lost out because they only got Cheryl to vote second because they wanted Katie kept in. They havent helped Cheryl really, she got backlash for Gamu and the producers had alot to do with that, now this.

A judge with 2 acts in the bottom 2 should automatically lose their right to vote. Problem solved

They should do a Fame Academy vote :joker: just kidding coz then if someone amazing was in the bottom two, some acts might vote to eliminate them to get rid of their competition