[Z]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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!