Last week at the star Academy, Tiana, Anisha, Julien and Stan were nominated. Julie, 25 years old and big fan of Tiana, voted for… Anisha in order to save her little protege. A Machiavellian three-band pool shot that she explains with more or less clarity: “One nominee is saved by the public, another by the remaining candidates. Polls and estimates showed Anisha and Julien leading the public vote, with Tiana trailing far behind. The difference between Anisha and Julien is that we all suspected that Julien would never be saved by the other candidates. Anisha, more popular at the castle, could be. It was therefore better to vote for Anisha, so that she would be saved by the public, leaving the field open to Tiana to be saved by the other candidates. “Simple as pie, right?
The useful vote, so dear to the political life of the country, would have interfered in telecrochets? With the emergence of social networks, absent at the start of reality TV in France, it is much easier to estimate the popularity rating of a particular candidate, and his chances of survival. Knowledge that generates apothecary calculations and debates on the relevance of such and such a vote.
The end of innocence, the beginning of utility
“In the first editions of the StarAc and others, voting for a candidate was something new, so it was more spontaneous, more personal, more emotional as well,” notes Nathalie Nadaud-Albertini, doctor of sociology from the École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS ) and reality TV specialist. The first editions of reality TV with public vote, whether loft story Where star Academy, go back to 2001, before the explosion of the useful vote in the political debate. “The concept already existed, but it was much more talked about after the first round of 2022 and the elimination of Lionel Jospin, when the total of left votes weighed more than 40%”, contextualizes Rachel Garrat-Valcarcel, political journalist at 20 minutes that we allowed ourselves to disturb for the occasion.
20 years later, end of innocence and heart. Last week, seeing her favorite Stan amply left behind, Marine, 30, voted for Julien: “I told myself that I was going to vote for the least worst candidate and who was likely to pass anyway. Voting Stan wouldn’t have changed anything in the game, he was screwed, whereas a vote for Julien could have had more influence”. Like a flavor of the first round of the 2022 presidential election.
In addition to giving estimates, social networks make it possible to organize voting campaigns. On Twitter in particular, by following the hashtag #StarAc, you will come across many indications of the most strategic vote to make according to your preferences and your favorite candidates. “The social network effect, in particular with the polls, makes it possible to break the bubble of ”Everyone votes in their corner” a little, and to organize surely more effective support raids”, estimates Justine, 27 years old and fan diligent.
A public with more perspective
The useful vote supposes its opposite: the vote deemed “useless”. Seeing her other darling, Chris, far behind in the polls, Marine had decided not to use her phone: “It’s useless, and I’d look like a fool to lose my money for someone who’s screwed.” A pragmatism and a rational side that Nathalie Nadaud-Albertini notes: “Compared to the first editions, the public has more distance, measure, restraint on its favorite candidates. He likes them, but is less in pure emotion, because 21 years have passed and the phenomenon has normalized. I have testimonies of the first editions where people voted frantically for their favorite, without caring if he had the slightest chance of winning. Before, we voted with the heart, now with the head. “Not to mention that the economic period has changed a lot, continues our expert: “The beginning of the 2000s was more serene economically. Today, just as we consume useful, we vote useful. »
Useful voting does not even need a poll to exist. “Even without an estimate, a resident of the 16th arrondissement of Paris can guess that her or his mayor will not be on the left”, illustrates Rachel Garrat-Valcarcel. In the last season of Dance with the stars, the candidate Thomas Da Costa, quickly the worst dancer among the participants, was saved many times by the public, well helped by his duet with Elsa, to the big popularity. A choice that drove a good part of the fans crazy, sometimes to the point of imagining downright devious plans. “We should have stopped scattering our votes, all choosing the same candidate and putting him number 1 in the public votes so that Thomas is not yet saved and eliminated by the jury”, visualizes Julie.
Not the monopoly of the heart
Still, the more the weeks pass, the more the public attaches itself and the more the useful vote yields in the face of unreason and passion. “The big difference this season, pushing the commitment of voters and especially in communication on social networks, is the implementation of live. The perception of the candidates differs so much if you follow the dailies or the live… It gives the impression that the public of the live, me the first, feels invested with a mission, to restore the ”real” image of the candidates “says Justine. She takes the example of the candidate Julien: “For a while, we saw him working very late on the live, being the one who went to bed the latest, but during the daily we only saw his side ‘I don’t I’m not going to class”.
“We also find a more intimate vote, especially around candidate Anisha with a difficult past. Some of the spectators vote for her for the sole purpose of supporting her after her childhood ordeals, ”notes Nathalie Nadaud-Albertini. She draws parallels with Magalie Vaé, winner of the Star Academy 5 : “The public had noticed that she was not adapted to the shackles of the world of music, and had voted for her in order to support her in this fight”, far from any calculation, strategy and other voting utilities. Viewers now vote more with their heads, but rest assured, their hearts are still beating.