And therein lies the problem, methinks.

With the current voting system, people can get booted from the show due to voter apathy.

I'd rather see a system like Survivor. Call in and vote for the person you want to see booted.

But that's just my bitter reaction to last nights complete and utter BS.

Apparently, a great deal of voters forget that this is about SINGING and PERFORMING, and not about PATRIOTISM. *sigh* (Not that patriotism is a bad thing ... but it's misplaced with something like AI.)

If Josh isn't gone next week, I'm done with this program....

(And I'd just like to add, that as a Canuck, I wish to hell I could actually vote....grrrr)

• Quoth Patman •<HR SIZE=1>People don't vote off anyone on American Idol. People vote to keep people ON the show. There is a subtle difference that many here are not quite grasping.<HR SIZE=1>

Exactly.

das

• Quoth CanadianKnight •<HR SIZE=1>And therein lies the problem, methinks.

With the current voting system, people can get booted from the show due to voter apathy.<HR SIZE=1>

See, I don't see this as a problem. The object is to WIN the contest, not to just coast through the various rounds until getting voted off. Under this system, you have to be consistent, and that's what they want. The winner will have to go on tour, and inconsistency is not a good thing. The person that America wants to win, i.e. the person who is going to have the best chance of selling the most records, IS going to win the competition. The order in which the losers leave the show isn't really significant, since if you can't get enough votes to stay, you're not ready to win this thing.

Also, I think faulting Josh for being a Marine may be a bit unfair. Yeah, that's his "thing" just like Ruben's "thing" is reprazzentin' Alabama, but I can't imagine a significant amount of people voting for him because he's a Marine. Perhaps they like country music or think he's cute or something. Much like Nikki, he's "different" enough from the other contestants to get some of the "outsider" vote. Nikki likely got a lot of rock and roll fans or the alternative crowd. Josh is probably getting country music fans and single women. As I detailed in my other post, the way the system is structured, it's very possible for someone to "not lose" with a relatively insignificant amount of votes. I expect Josh is in that category. I'm sure he'll be gone next week anyway, as all the people who like Ruben but didn't vote for him (probably because they voted for Clay) will take notice of his spot in the Bottom 2 and come out in droves.

Anyway, who knows why Josh got some votes, but I think it's unclear enough to blame it simply on blind patriotism. Hopefully he's gone next week, though, cuz I'm tired of listening to him.

das

Yes, and I'm really looking forward to this one.

From EW.com:
Crushed Velvet


Ruben in the bottom two? Josh safe? EW.com readers wonder what's going on



ROOTIN' FOR RUBEN The 205 resident didn't look half as shocked as Simon when the teddy bear's name was announced



Anybody know if there's a world record on the books for Loudest Synchronized Gasp?

Most of the people who posted on our ''American Idol'' message board were beyond shocked by the fact that Ruben Studdard -- the velvet teddy bear, the ''205'' talent, the judges' clear favorite -- was half of the bottom two for Wednesday's elimination show. Though ultimately he was sent back to the couch with the other finalists (diva-in-the-making Trenyce got cut), some readers were already crafting their conspiracy theories:

ARTY
THE END LAST NIGHT SEEMED PHONEY AND STAGED. SINCE NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE VOTE, IT WAS THEATER TO PUT RUBEN IN THERE, JUST TO GET AMERICA USPETS, CAUSE SOME CONTROVERSY, AND GIVE AMERICA A REASON TO WATCH THE LAST 10 MINUTES.

Richard
American Idol should not let its voting be hi-jacked by a group of marines or patriots (of which I am one) or next season no one will be watching the new series or the Junior series. Lets get some control over the voting.

mmyelke
LAST NIGHT'S FIASCO WAS JUST A RATINGS BOOSTER, NOTHING MORE. THIS IS SWEEPS MONTH, YA KNOW!!!

Sure, a handful of you agreed that Ruben has stagnated in the competition and deserved his bottom-two spot, but a whopping 75 percent who took our ''American Idol'' poll thought Josh would be the one sent back to barracks. One Tuesday poster was so sure the Marine would be gone that he offered up a suggestion for this article:

Tomorrow's headline:
''No Saving Gracin'' or ''Marine Lands''?

Indeed, Josh took the most criticism for his performances this week (and for his borderline-threat sassing of Simon):

sher
Josh, lighten up and learn to take criticism. Do you use that same type of talkback to your higher-ups in the military? I think not.

Michelle
How in the heck did Josh even make it through the preliminary tryouts? Does he take each judge aside and tell them that he knows one hundred ways to kill a man?

Still, a few were a little more kind in their opinions of the military man:

jason
Although I agree that Josh should have been the one to go, it certainly wasn't his fault that he wasn't. Unless you called in and voted for Ruben or Trenyce, you have no right to complain about the results.

So why didn't Ruben get more call-in votes? One reason may be that viewers are annoyed by what they see as favoritism toward the big guy and the other popular finalist, Clay (who had special lighting for his performance of ''Solitaire''):

Ann
I resent the judges telling me who to vote for. I think I am quite able to make up my own mind, and I really don't like comments from Randy, for example, telling Ruben that he has already won the competition, especially when he had yet to hear the others sing.

Andrew W.
It seems that Ryan and the producers hype up Ruben and Clay's performances much more than the others. Is that why Josh looks so unhappy every week?

In any case, one reader tried to put everything in perspective:

Pkelly
Relax, people. Who got the boot first last year: Tamyra or Nikki? Tamyra's got a CD and regular TV role. Nikki hosts a karaoke night in Austin. Talent will win out.

The voting FOR vs. Voting AGAINST has pros and cons as pointed out. There is no PERFECT way.

As others pointed out a few months ago, if the system was changed to vote AGAINST, America probably wouldn't go for it totally the same way.
It would be too mean-spirited. (not for me, I'd love to watch).
But could you see "Charles Grigsby, America voted and the most votes ever recorded 10 MILLION voters in America DO NOT LIKE YOU, you have been ELIMINATED".
Vs. playing it off that they just don't have as much "support" as the others. Everyone still "likes" you, they just "support" others more. Keeping it positive this way.

Yep. We've been having this same discussion for months now, and people still don't get it. After all, this is the same way the record charts work as well. It's not "Who's hated the least?" It makes sense to vote for your favorite.

As for the "It was rigged!" crowd, please post your head size. I have a tinfoil hat to sell you.

Calm down, Tygan.

I have absolutely no hatred of "middle America." What I have is an education is mass media, generally, and television broadcasting, specifically. "Middle America" is a phrase typically used when making programming decisions.

The phrase actually has numerous connotations, but is generally used to define the following demographic: white, middle class, middle income, moderate, located in the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies. But, typically, location is less of a consideration than the other criteria.

Perhaps you've heard the cliche, "But will it sell in Topeka?" The whole idea is that broadcast TV programming needs to emulate the general attitudes of those living in the central U.S.A. to be successful in terms of ratings. Hence the reason Leno typically pulls better ratings than the more critically acclaimed Letterman, for instance. Hence the reason that the top news anchors and morning show personalities are white. The reason almost all broadcast programming is centered around middle class whites with little to no programming (save UPN and the Paramount network) centering around black characters. The only exception is typically in ensemble shows (like Homicide, the Practice, etc.) where the show doesn't focus on a single character.

TV that is flashy, overly conservative or liberal, too experimental, etc., all tend to be thought of as commercially unviable. UPN and the WB have tried to use this their advantage by counter programming to that attitude.

Mind you...the growth of cable and satellite, and the consitent trend towards narrowcasting, have changed the viewpoint somewhat. Not to mention the ever shifting national demographics. But in terms of national broadcast televison, the attitude still largely pervails.

It was not meant as any form of bigotry or meant to be demeaning. It was just a reference to larger television viewing population.

"Looking for a scrap"--you seem to feel the need to pick on my particular comments, regardless of the serious OR comedic tone in which they were intended.

As for your "well-reasoned and logical theory," you just pulled a bunch of percentages out of the air and presented it as if you knew them to be fact (or darn-near close to it). And considering how many people probably vote mulitple times for the same person (teens or more likely to do this), I think your theory is misrepresented. While it may not be a majority of people that do this, I'd be willing to bet it's a significant-enough amount to have an impact on the results we saw.

I think I've clarified many times that I don't have any favorites and my judgment is swayed week-to-week based on performance (as it SHOULD be). Outside of family and friends, I can't think of any reason to vote for a specific contestant...and no, because they're from your part of the country is not a valid reason to vote for a less-talented person. This should be a judgment of talent, not popularity (but when the public is put in charge, that's what ends up happening anyway, and it's unfortunate). I really don't care who wins....but I do like the most deserving and talented people to get their fair shake. I won't be buying any one of these people's CDs, so I have minimal direct interest in the outcome other than the entertainment value of watching the show and critiquing the performances along with everyone else.

so I take it if Ruben doesn't win the whole thing this show is fixed, huh?

• Quoth ChrisHicks •<HR SIZE=1>so I take it if Ruben doesn't win the whole thing this show is fixed, huh? <HR SIZE=1>

Not only that, but the terrorists win ...

das

Wow - I'm really surprised at how many people took my "rigged" comments seriously. While I certainly think there is a possibility of some vote tampering, I wouldn't assert such a claim without to think of something new to say. It was an attention-getting headline for my post...stating what many are thinking anyway. I think the rest of that particular post made the best case for my position on the topic.

And I do think the judges should have veto power. What would happen if America DOES pick Josh as the winner? Yikes...

• Quoth SleepyW •<HR SIZE=1>"Looking for a scrap"--you seem to feel the need to pick on my particular comments, regardless of the serious OR comedic tone in which they were intended.<HR SIZE=1>

That's funny. You haven't been here too long, have you? I have an opinion on just about everything. It really has nothing to do with you. If you don't want to get into discussions with me, you should quote my posts less frequently. If you address me directly, I'm going to respond. Not sure what else you expect.

• Quoth SleepyW •<HR SIZE=1>As for your "well-reasoned and logical theory," you just pulled a bunch of percentages out of the air and presented it as if you knew them to be fact (or darn-near close to it).<HR SIZE=1>

The percentages were there to give you an idea of how I was suggesting the situation could have gone down ("Chances are the vote was along the lines of this"). It's quite clear to anyone who isn't simply being argumentative that I was not presenting them as facts, but pointing out how someone could get a very small amount of votes and still not end up in the Bottom 3.

das

• Quoth SleepyW •<HR SIZE=1>Wow - I'm really surprised at how many people took my "rigged" comments seriously. I think the rest of that particular post made the best case for my position on the topic.<HR SIZE=1>

Might I recommend smilies? I wear a tinfoil cap from Groucho Enterprises and as such can't read minds.

das

this show prob. is fixed. do you think anyone would watch if Ruben lost? I think the judges/Fox will make sure he wins. Hell, the judges already keep saying he's the winner. Do they know something we don't?

I have no problems with discussions with anyone...it was just an observation that your initial reply to my first response was rolling eyes and denunciation of my comments.

Exactly--"Chances are..." implies that you're insinuating a better than 50% chance that your figures were accurate, in your interpretation. To me, it's still pullling a bunch of numbers out of thin air. I think a better argument to support your theory would be the "voter apathy" angle that's been suggested rather than quoting percentages than really have no substance.

It still wouldn't explain to me how Josh got more votes than Trenyce. I think there should be an investigation just based on that!

You know, I sometimes forget this board is relatively anonymous and people here don't know how cynical and sarcastic I really am...I'll work on the smilies (even though I've been ripped on other boards for making serious comments even though I used winking smilies and such)....oh well.....

• Quoth SleepyW •<HR SIZE=1>Exactly--"Chances are..." implies that you're insinuating a better than 50% chance that your figures were near accurate, in your interpretation. To me, it's still pullling a bunch of numbers out of thin air.<HR SIZE=1>

Sure, if you're just being argumentative. The numbers aren't important; the suggested imbalance was the point.

• Quoth SleepyW •<HR SIZE=1>It still wouldn't explain to me how Josh got more votes than Trenyce.<HR SIZE=1>

It certainly does explain it. The point of my theory was that the same people who like Clay like Ruben. The same people who like Trenyce like Kimberly. And the same people who like Josh like crap. Unfortunately, crap wasn't able to steal votes from Josh. Kimberly, on the other hand, probably took a significant chunk of Trenyce's votes (and Clay took from Ruben), allowing Josh to narrowly slide through. This theory is based on the assumption that the vast majority (a statistically dominant amount) of voters vote once or more than once for a single contestant.

das

You know what brian & das??

I stand corrected. Like I said... it was just my bitterness talkin.

Although I still wish to hell I could actually vote!

• Quoth CanadianKnight •<HR SIZE=1>Although I still wish to hell I could actually vote!<HR SIZE=1>

You enjoy all the freedoms and security of America without any of the hassle of actually living here, and now you want to VOTE? Canadians

das

Personally, I think it's good that you can't vote. With Canadians voting there would be little to no chance for Josh to stay where he belongs.

Why might one suggest that Ruben was put in the bottom 2 just for drama and ratings?

Well, I'd really like to believe that everything is on the up and up here, but numerous reports from people who actually tried out for AI indicate that the producers STRESSED over and over again that they were NOT looking for the next American Idol. That they were not looking for the next great singing sensation. That they were primarily looking to put together a great television show.

What better television than having Ruben in the bottom 2.

Perhaps this is also why they top 12 was full of rather mediocre singers.

Perhaps this is also how Corey managed to get in the top 12.

Perhaps this is also why they let Frenchie through and then kicked her off later.

When one considers the motives of the producers, that they're primarily interested in ratings, one's mind begins to wonder.

This is half of it... people assumed everyone else was voting for him, so why should they? It happens in real elections all the time.

And this is the big thing I think everyone is missing... everyone seems to think that everyone else is voting purely on vocal talent or the marine thing or whatever... but I think genre is key here. People like different types of music... and what is represented? R&B, a Broadway/pop hybrid, and country. Trenyce, Kim, and Ruben are all competing in R&B, and are splitting the dedicated R&B votes. Clay gets a bit of his genre. Then Josh gets the dedicated country people. Yes, there are those who like all genres or vote on the best despite their preferred genre, but they are the swing votes. I think genre plays a huge role in this. People who are REALLY into country may prefer a so-so country singer to a great soul singer.

And about this being rigged, I doubt it. If anything, there is more of a chance that it was rigged the other way (that is, Ruben actually got the least votes due to people not voting because he's a "shoo-in"). Again, not because he's the worst, but because of the false assumption that he doesn't need the votes. Think of how they stressed the "you have to vote, people!" message.

It's only great television if millions of people tuned in to watch the show. Just having Ruben in the bottom 2 had no bearing on people tuning in. Especially since the expectations was that Josh and Trenyce were the odds-on favorites for being in the bottom 2. But the turn of events does have a springboard effect for the next upcoming results show.

On the subject of voting... did anyone else see the new m-life commercials advertising AI voting through their text-messaging? This morning one of their ads aired and at the very end the girl turns to the camera and comments, (I may be paraphrasing because I saw it 8 hours ago) "Don't vote another loser into the next round." It stood out to me since I don't remember hearing that in past commercials. Or did it just stand out due to last night's events?

Either way, I'm voting for Clay and Ruben next week if they keep up the good performances and try to keep them out of the bottom.


Das... Good theory on the voting system.