I’m on deadline for a couple different pieces, and that means: time to outsource! Today’s TV Poll question comes from someone you know as regular Tuned In commenter Lulu: What system of having reality contestants voted off is the best?
There are almost as many different systems of reality-show democracy as there are systems of government in the United Nations. There is voting by contestants (Survivor); voting by viewers (American Idol); voting by judges (Project Runway); a combination of judges and viewers (Dancing with the Stars); viewers narrowing down, followed by judges deciding (So You Think You Can Dance); a combination of contestants and viewers (Big Brother, at least in a way); decision by one Decider (The Bachelor, The Apprentice).
If you think about it, the different systems embody philosophies of governance and human nature as different as those of the Founding Fathers in John Adams. What should the system of checks and balances be? Should the decision be entrusted to the great unwashed rabble? To a small body of elites? To a combination of both? To a single autocrat, armed with roses?
As a critic, I guess I tend to be a Federalist when it comes to reality shows: I think shows judged by judges, like Top Chef et al., produce a better quality of winner (not that “quality” is an issue on, say, Big Brother). But that also necessarily limits the show—it’s one of many reasons that Project Runway could never be as big as American Idol, and leaving America out of the vote would never fly on Idol.
What say you? What system forms a more perfect reality show?