MovieChat Forums > Dancing with the Stars (2005) Discussion > Critique of the new rules

Critique of the new rules

posted 4 years ago by Jes' Sayin' (5955)
6 replies | jump to latest

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dwts-still-popularity-problem-judges-220020666.html

The writer of this article seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. How can you incorporate viewer voting -- which must be a large element in the interest in the show, the fact that you can influence it -- with the possibility that sometimes the worst dancer is not the one to leave? It's impossible. The two just don't fit in the same world.

They are also not making sense when they try to claim that most voters want the best dancer to continue. This is plainly not the case or otherwise the best would not be going home at times.

[–] strntz (10806) 4 years ago

This is plainly not the case or otherwise the best would not be going home at times.

That's certainly true.

What they should do is have the voting in thirds, with each third counting for, well, a third of the total.

Have the three panel judges as always, have the audience as always, but add a college of dance professionals to vote anonymously. This way, two thirds of the voting is done by people who know what real hoofing is, and will vote for the best dancers and not vote by popularity. The anonymous college could be made up of former Dancing cast members and some Broadway and Hollywood choreographers.

Since they don't publish the audience votes anyway, adding more weight to the voting by knowledgeable professionals will improve the show.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 4 years ago

It's interesting. Would it be equivalent if the judges' votes counted for 2/3? Then they could save budget by not having to hire all those other people.

[–] strntz (10806) 4 years ago

Would it be equivalent if the judges' votes counted for 2/3?

Yes, something I suggested in seasons gone by. IOW, why have the audience votes weighted that heavily where the result is often an obviously clumsy/poor/untalented dancer staying for weeks longer than truly talented competitors do.

But instead of giving a "disproportional" weight to the three judges as opposed to the audience (which seems split 50-50), have it split three ways. In this way, the TV judges might even be surprised by the professional pool voters whereas I think they know going into a show that a TV favorite is going to bump a good dancer.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 4 years ago

Do you think though that the pool would vote much differently than the judges? Why or why not?

The only other concern might be that maybe fewer people would watch because currently they enjoy that power of being able to vote their favorites in and they might get upset at having their favorite toy taken from them.

[–] strntz (10806) 4 years ago

They could vote differently, but even if they're not radically different, it will reduce the sympathy voting from the viewers.

The only other concern might be that maybe fewer people would watch because currently they enjoy that power of being able to vote their favorites in and they might get upset at having their favorite toy taken from them.

I only watch because my wife does, and she's sat through so many of my shows it's only fair. But, she's as rabid a fan as anyone I know. She sits and texts with three of her friends constantly and they chat about what's going on. None of the four vote, so I do wonder how much impact voting has on viewership.

Still, by shifting the weighting of the vote, the people will still have a vote, it will just be a more reasonable percentage. I mean, the people who know zero about dancing have as much input as the professional judges, which is why the travesty of a quality dancer being voted off happens every season.

I know that my wife and friends hate when that happens, but they still continue to watch...

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 4 years ago

Sure, it's worth watching because it's more about the journey than the result. You still see some fun dance routines, regardless.

It would be logical for voters to realize that they still have influence, but I wonder if that would be enough for them. The general public don't always act as if they have a good grasp of logic. But maybe.