Idol v/s Idols

Slate.com has run this article which posits that voting in American Idol is not objective because people can vote more than once for their favoured participants and that Sanjaya Malakar is the worst performer among the surviving lot. My contention is how can any voting be objective? The graph in the article shows how people have voted if they're allowed to vote only once but on what basis can you say that the people who voted did so only on grounds of singing skills? We all know how Pop Idols are created. It's not all about talent. It has much to do with market realities and what kind of product can make you the most money. Sanjaya is up there because Indians constitute a lucrative global set of voter and , more importantly, consumers. He might well go on to be the first international Indian Popstar. Despite his lack of talent. It's all about the money, dohs!