[Mystic Mock]

I didn't know what section to put this in so if it's in the wrong section then I understand moving it.

Anyway what's your answer to this question? I personally am starting to wonder if the public should be barred from voting as they don't vote with the rules of how BB, TXF, The Voice, or whatever other Reality Show you can think of are suppose to work.

BB - Whilst Helen was my favourite in that series, the public was just so determined to vote for a girl to win that no matter what the guys said or did that the public would never rally towards them to win.

TXF - The final 3 should've been Lauren, Andrea, and OTY in whatever order imo, they all complimented each other with the fact that they was all different to each other, but no instead all 3 got dodgy VT's and song choices to destroy them because of course Simon's posers had to be in the top 2 with not an ounce of talent, or even being remotely interesting to watch, the public voted very poorly in this series and in series 10 imo where by the top 6 only Luke and Hannah was any good and neither won.

The Voice - Both the US and the UK versions are notorious for the public picking bad winners, Danielle, Craig, and Josh for the US version, and Leanne and Stevie for the UK version, Joshua and India have also in the recent US season have received more votes than Deanna, Rob, and now Kimberly who was more talented than both of them put together, and I would personally say that Corey was more talented than Joshua.

That's just a few incidences to name as to reasons why I don't think that the public should be allowed to vote on these shows.

Do I think that the system would be perfect the way that I would have it? No, but it would give us more of a chance at being able to have better outcomes imo.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

this makes zero sense

[Marsh.]

[Jack_]

Talent shows no as that kind of defeats the point, but reality shows yes. I'd actually argue that the ~reality~ of such a show is actually affected and distorted by outside influence from the public, there's nothing more real than leaving it up to the participants themselves.

And of course the public don't have a bloody clue what they're doing the majority of the time so yeah, scrap it

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Talent shows no as that kind of defeats the point

Not necessarily. The first talent reality shows like Popstars was about watching a panel of judges creating a new pop group or whatever. Doesn't necessarily always require a public vote.

And thinking of X Factor/Pop Idol, the public have voted only 1 or 2 as winners that have gone on to any success.

[Marsh.]

Also I disagree with Mock saying voters in BB and similar shows "aren't voting with the rules of how these shows work". There are no rules.

It's simply vote for who you want to save, evict, win. Simple as that. People will want to keep and get rid of people for different reasons depending on what they are finding entertaining to watch.

[Mokka]

I wouldn't watch UK BB if it wasn't public vote... it's what makes the series unique and keeps viewers watching. What I can't figure out is why you would pay to vote... that's not allowed in Canada... but it's a whole other conversation.

As for Talent shows... again if there was no public vote, the voice would just be American idol. It is keep the public voting or scrap the show imo

And to address the right or wrong outcome... the only outcome these producers want is viewers/ratings, and keeping the public in the loop keeps ratings up. Do you think any of these show creator,producers,owners care if the winner is the right one or if they go on to success once it is over? HA is what I say to that. Once the season is over, these contestants aren't needed anymore

If you are looking for fault in the way these shows are run... don't look at the public choice as the problem... it is the false fame they dangle in front of the contestants eye's that is the real issue here

[BBDodge]

Half the time voters get General Elections wrong. Doesn't mean we should do away with democracy.

[Maxxie.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not necessarily. The first talent reality shows like Popstars was about watching a panel of judges creating a new pop group or whatever. Doesn't necessarily always require a public vote.

And thinking of X Factor/Pop Idol, the public have voted only 1 or 2 as winners that have gone on to any success.

Because syco end up managing the winners like ****. Thats why 2nd or 3rd usually does better as a better record deal signs them.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBDodge

Half the time voters get General Elections wrong. Doesn't mean we should do away with democracy.

Tbf whatever the people vote is gonna be wrong there as all the parties in the UK are ****.

[mrmattybeck1]

Absolutely not the public deserve to be involved in these shows

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Alan Sugar should just pick the winner of everything.

Except the Apprentice, as Mark Wright was a worse winner than anyone last year.

[Jamesy]

Removing public voting would stop a lot of viewers from watching these show.

The whole point of voting is to make the viewers feel like they are a part of it, they are in control, they choose the person they want.

Big Brother could never work without public votes, without that a lot of viewers would ask themselves what's the point in watching.

XF/the Voice could work without public voting although since the days of the early pop shows we have grown to be used to being in control, removing that would damage modern music shows.

The Apprentice is different because it's about Alan Sugar having his own personal business partner. So he should be the one that picks the winner anyway. Plus given it's filmed months in advance voting would be impossible.

[Tarryn]

I would ban horny teenage girls from voting.
We always end up with the air-headed male housemate with zero personality trying desperately to get a showmance going

[Ross.]

No because the public vote is probably what keeps most people interested knowing they can get the people they don't like out, granted a lot of the time it's the wrong result.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Bb2014

Because syco end up managing the winners like ****. Thats why 2nd or 3rd usually does better as a better record deal signs them.

Come on, most of them are sh*te without a chance in hell.

Who thought Leon Jackson would make a good pop star?

[Blog Rider]

I think voting should be free as I would never pay to vote on a reality show

[Denver]

We live i the UK not the USA

[armand.kay]

Originally Posted by adamski94

We live i the UK not the USA

this answers the question.

[T*]

no

[Pete.]

We have BBUSA for this

[jyunga]

I actually think the public vote works in favor for BBUK. You guys seem to keep running with BB contestants after they leave the house in magazines, tabloids,etc. In the US/Canada they are pretty much forgotten a week after show ends until something major happens to them. I think public involvement in the UK keeps that interest up and helps keep being tuning in.

[Mystic Mock]

The public can't even do something as basic as voting the Tories out of Parliament in something as serious as a GE.

We need to protect our entertainment.

[Mystic Mock]

The public can't even do something as basic as voting the Tories out of Parliament in something as serious as a GE.

We need to protect our entertainment.

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

The public can't even do something as basic as voting the Tories out of Parliament in something as serious as a GE.

We need to protect our entertainment.

Ditching the public vote could also lead to bores sailing to the final so it's no different really. They just need to rig it more to get bores out