[kosmonox]

It's because the voting British public have a tendency to vote out, or vote to keep people in whom they would like to live with themselves.

There seems to be a disconnect between an emulation of the voters desire for a big brother experience and voting to keep the show entertaining.

If someone is nice and plan and normal, without controversy that is, the voting British public will take a liking to them, as anyone naturally would, and they'll remain in the big brother house.

That's not necessary to say those people remaining are what make the show good.

Case example: Science

arguably one of the loudest, most rambunctious, and split likability players in big brother

when he was voted out the show experienced a dramatic loss in ratings.

I'll say that BBUK does some things right, not allowing for conversation of nominations and leaving it up to the public to vote where as BBUS does the opposite. The only problem is the public's inability to vote to keep the show entertaining.

We all get suckered into watching the initial episodes for the euphoria of the new experience, a few weeks in arguments and controversy develops which really peaks all of our interests, and then the public weans out that controversy and the show degrades on a boring slope.

It's why there's always talk of cancellation, the problem is systemic really.

I've said earlier that I dont understand the publics fascination with aaron and I do believe that keeping him in the house for this season at least is a bad idea only for the entertainment factor which the show possesses.

Truthfully I couldn't be bothered as I don't vote and my viewership doesn't count towards any standardized ratings as I don't live in the Uk. I'm just a reality TV junkie starved for entertainment. Vote as you please, but be aware of what your votes do, if you do vote that is.

Peace & Mathematics