Indy said, "How in the world was Siro-A that far down in the results? They could have been no better than 7th. That's crazy."
===============
I think a lot of the surprises come from the way AGT arranges the voting. For example, let's say that the votes hypothetically had Oz Pearlman as #1, Drew Lynch as #2 and Siro-A as #3. Putting Drew against Siro-A would knock out Siro-A, even though they were the 3rd best! In fact, if Drew's votes put him as #1 and Siro-A was a very close #2, Siro-A would still be thrown out and replaced by acts at the bottom of the list. I wonder why none of us complained that the voting puts two of the bottom three in the top 5. That means that two acts in the top 5 are knocked out to make room for two of the three worst. What's the logic in that? So when we say that they could have been no better than 7th, you can see that they might have been second! Two out of five is 40%, so the vote allows 40% of the winners to be those that the views felt were the least deserving!!
What's the logic of taking two acts who viewers put in the top 5 and throwing them out so that they can be replaced by acts at the very bottom of the list? I didn't think about that until today and wonder why we all haven't been screaming about that! It's also clear that if the show carefully selects who goes against who, they can knock anyone they want out, except for the top vote getter, just by selecting who goes against who. Keep in mind that all this is legal and does not imply any distortion of the votes count.
