It INFURIATES me when...
 

...it's down to the bottom 2 and the judges have to decide who's going when it's a bad act up against a good act and the judges send home the good act because the bad one can "grow". :rolleyes: It's totally unfair to the good act... they should make someone go home because they're bad, not because they think they can grow.

:mad:

Katie over FYD FAIR.
Belle Amie over Diva Fever FAIR.

Been right so far...

Yeah its a stupid reason to be honest.

I remember going off it everytime rachel hylton was saved because of her 'raw talent' when really, she was useless

When Rachel went over Lloyd bloody Daniels! :(

Suppose Simon was right though that it was Rachel's 3rd time in the bottom 2 but she still sang much better than Lloyd.

Thats all they ever say or 'Im going to go with who i thought just gave the better performance'

They need to start giving better full reasons.

It should ALWAYS be about who gave the best survival performance though. Otherwise, whats the point in them performing again?

I think it should be down to the public. Whoever gets the fewest votes should go. I think that would be the fairest way.

Wasn't that the week he had a sore throat? That's even more of a reason as to why he deserved to stay that week over her...

It works like that from when there's five left. But I think the sing-off and Judge's Vote is fair, because it gives an act a 'second chance'.

Yeah, I know it works like that eventually. I don't agree the judges vote is fair though. The judges will always back whoever's in their group, whether they're good or bad.

It also gives the judges a chance to save untalented acts though over people who were better :S

It doesnt really give them a second chance...as no matter how well some acts sing in the sing off...they still are booted out because someone else 'could grow more'...

Well of course, but that's the way the show works. There's still two impartial judges though [or three when one judge has two acts in the Bottom Two].

What I mean though is it gives both acts a 'second chance' at surviving, rather than just being kicked out with the lowest votes. It's fairer in the sense that it's not all over for one of them, regardless of whoever that may be...

OMG though, Loyd was soooooo beautiful, I know it is a singing competition but he was too cute to go and anyway Rachel Hylton was a bit mad and stuff and she really needed much longer to learn how to use her voice.

Like when my Coco went over Rachel last yr.

I'd prefer it if the act with the bottm votes just left.

Jedward wouldn't have gone, probably neither would have Diva Fever.

It should be on their overall time IMO, Its easy to mess up one performance because of the pressure. So its kind of unfair that they go because of that if they have been consistent throughout.

Preferably that, ior they give FULL, frank and unbiased reasons.
It's a flaw which needs fixing.

^^^^

Its not fairer really though...to the person who is kicked out instead of actual least popular one

Say cher and mary were the bottom two. Cher actually got the least votes.

But the judges would save Cher, regardless of how bad her singoff was(and it would be bad no doubt, mary would wipe the floor with her).

if they based the decision SOLELY on the performance, then yeah, everyone deserves a second chance, but they don't. they use a variety of **** reasons.

but then...again, theres no need for the sing off is there? So its pointless them pretending that there is :S

Personally, the categories element of the show is one of my favourite things - and it is also one of the things that makes the show different to other similar talent contests. And infact, I believe Simon has to keep that element or else it would be deemed tok similar to Simon Fuller's 'Pop Idol' format - something which he already went to court with Cowell over.

Fair point - though I personally believe that generally, though there are exceptions to the rule [people who don't bother voting etc], the two acts who end up in the Bottom Two aren't really favourites of the viewers anyway [hence why they're there], and so it's not really going to be a big deal as to who stays and who goes. You also have to factor in that, really, they should also keep an act that definitely has a chance of going on to win [or more of a chance of going on to win than the other act] - in this case I believe it would be Cher. Similarly, they should [and I believe do] also factor in who out of the two is the most commerically viable - again, out of the two I believe this is Cher. There's no point in saving an act that will definitely not win or an act that is not commerically viable. When neither are, then either it should be judged on the vocal or the entertainment - personally speaking I'd prefer the latter. That's how I saw it in the Bottom Two between Diva Fever and Belle Amie - neither are going to win, so you may as well save the act that's more entertaining - Diva Fever.

If the acts have landed in the bottom two/three; then clearly none of them are popular enough to go on to win, so I think that point you made is invalid. Simon himself has said that it's a singing competition on the live shows this year; that has been emphasised a lot this year; and Dannii commented on how it's a "save me" song when an act is in the bottom two. The judges need to all play by the same rulebook. They should be saving the act based entirely on the song they just performed; and ignore everything else, otherwise what's the point in the bottom two? It's just pointless extended TV time without any kind of justification for it. Granted, so far I'd say the judges have made the right decisions (although I think Katie vs FYD should have gone to deadlock) but I fully expect they will screw someone over at some point in the near future!