The Weakest Link: The People's Vote

Here in Australia, The Weakest Link is consistently in the top 5 highest rated shows each week.

But the most common complaint with the show involves the way the contestants are voted off. All too often the people who deserve the money the least are the ones who eventually becomes the longest lasting contestants.

Yes, the current system makes the game less predictive and allows a Survivor-esque strategy of eliminating your greatest threats. However it is always disheartening to see a surviving contestant get wrong questions that everyone else can answer, or give the most pathetic "reason you should piss off" answer possible ("your too young/old" is not a good answer!). I once saw a someone who didn't know what tower a "Mr Eiffel" built, and another who claimed that people who she voted for "just didn't care anymore" four times in a row! Bloody hell!

I propose an audience vote. Unlike the often stressed contestants, the audience would know who is crap, and who is not by observing their performance. In weeding out lacklustre players, this method could also result in higher prize money totals, where the average Australian booty is a paltry $21, 000 out of a hundred.

But to make it interesting, the contestant vote remains in the game. This is only to indicate who the contestants want out and their reasons. This also serves to highlight the schemers and create conflict. This will have no effect on audience voting: they vote while the contestents are scribbling down their choices. After the contestant vote, the audience results are then announced and the host tells them to piss off.

Then at the conclusion the winner basically becomes "the people's champion" and most people would be saisfied at the result.