Eurovision 2016: Thoughts On The New Voting

eurovision sweden 2016Eurovision 2016 – The best part of the day after the grand final is going through the results and analyzing the heck out of them. You guys looked into some of the interesting results that happened this year so we want to share them. Plus, the new voting happened, not just in format, the voting did change. Here’s first thoughts on it.

So the new voting was presented as “nothing has changed, just the way to present it”. So, while that’s actually a lie, we’ll first look at the new voting only on the way it’s presented.

A New Exciting Reveal

I’m torn for the new system: it’s insanely exciting so I give them that. But the problem is, we get diaspora voting getting BACK its power and momentum and worse, it’s now HIDDEN in that system (more or less, only we know it’s diaspora, it just makes it look like they were liked through Europe not knowing where Armenia, Lithuania or Poland got their points to push them in the top 10)… at the same time, the old system would have maybe given an Australian win, whereas this one brought the 2nd of both list (is that better than Mans actually winning juries but down to 3rd in televote?)… also the full ranking would have pushed a song like France, which is 11th-12th in many countries’ televote (Latvia, Uk, Ireland…), but behind some diaspora, to get big points as it was hugely loved by juries. Also since the two lists are so different (the third with juries, France, was at 148, and Poland in televote was third with 222), the fact that they’re combined earlier, changes the full results a lot. So I’m torn, between the excitement, the fact that both list gets acknowledged live, are all interesting, but for the “fairness” of killing diaspora, the old system (with or without full rankings) feel fairer to me…

Also, the new system does make for some classic moments, since juries are so WTF and, not all, but at least half, very fair… Norway giving 0 to Sweden to give 12 to Italy (while the Stockholm Globen shouted “Sweden!”) or the already iconic 12pts to Georgia from the Uk! These are precious esc moments!

The Voting Did Change

So, the voting is different as I said. But while I keep saying “old system”, I should have written “old systems”. Yes, there is the one between 2009 and 2012 and then the one between 2013 and 2015. In the first one, juries and televote both count as 50%. Each country has therefore two Top 10, one from its national jury (of 5 people more or less well picked, you all know what I mean by that), and one from its televote (and in all country, yes, all, there is some regional bias which is impossible to debate whether that’s cultural closeness or unfair flag bias). Between 2009 and 2012, each broadcaster would merge those two Top 10 and end up with its final voting (in case of a tie, televote would win, something that ALREADY won’t happen in the new voting). Between 2013 and 2015, the full ranking of both sets of votes was used which changed a lot of things, as already shown the past three years: a song like France, which was high in juries and 11th in a few countries, would have done better than the X votes from juries + 0 from televote it got in the 2009-2012 & 2016 system where only the Top 10 were used.

So why did this new system changes things? Let’s take the infamous Lithuania v. Iceland case of 2011. Here are the numbers: Iceland finnished 20th with 61pts (Sigurjón’s Friends with Coming Home) and Lithuania finnished 19th with 63pts (Evelina Sašenko with C’est Ma Vie). In televote, Iceland was 19th (60pts) and Lihuania down to 20th (55pts). Surprisingle enough, juries agreed! Iceland was also 19th (72pts) and Lithuania down to 20th (66pts). That’s right, both jury and televote had both countries in the same spot and order, but they switched order in the merge full ranking in the end. What would have happened this year? Well instead of the early merge, we get both votes added one to another. So Iceland would have gotten 60+72=132pts and Lithuania would have gotten 55+66=121pts and, of course, since there’s no weird merge, they keep the right order. Why is that? Well that’s where it gets tricky, but let’s just say that, Iceland did get more points in both lists but with more countries voting for it in small numbers. In merging both lists, the small numbers mean smaller votes to either televote or jury’s favorite. On the other hand, Lithuania got less countries voting for it but with bigger points that remained bigger when the merge happened and so they doubled Iceland in the old 2009-2012 system. So obviously, it’s clear the new system is better and fairer and we don’t get weird results like in 2011, especially in years where jury and televote not only disagree but also spread around a lot.

Now I hear you ask, but what would have changed in 2016 if we had used the old system? Well thanks to our regular reader Randomvan, we have those results:

 2009-2012 System  2016 System
304 Ukraine 534  Ukraine
288 Australia  511  Australia
271 Russia  491  Russia
153 Bulgaria  307  Bulgaria
144 Sweden  261  Sweden
126 France  257  France
118 Poland  249  Armenia
118 Armenia  229  Poland
106 Lithuania  200  Lithuania
86 Belgium  181  Belgium
68 Austria  153  Netherlands
66 Latvia  153  Malta
64 Serbia  151  Austria
61 Azerbaijan  135  Israel
59 Malta  132  Latvia
55 Italy  124  Italy
52 Hungary  117  Azerbaijan
50 Netherlands  115  Serbia
50 Israel  108  Hungary
46 Georgia  104  Georgia
42 Cyprus  96  Cyprus
33 Croatia  77  Spain
28 United Kingdom  73  Croatia
25 Spain  62  United Kingdom
10 Czech Republic  41  Czech Republic
4 Germany  11  Germany

These results speak for themselves, you can tell that SVT lied when they said it didn’t change a thing. It did, and it’s actually for the best. As for the 2013-2015 system, that one is very different with the full rankings, an entry like Poland that was almost universally hated by the juries and almost universally loved by televote would still do very poorly as the juries, in the merge ranking of each country, would prevent it from getting too much points. Israel and Malta drop, while Latvia gets a huge boost to 10th, where Netherlands is now in the Top 10 and France in the Top 5! But more importantly, the winner is now Australia! Germany and Czech Republic also swap places. Here is the comparison:

 2003-2015 System  2016 System
320 Australia 534  Ukraine
279 Ukraine  511  Australia
240 Russia  491  Russia
182 Bulgaria  307  Bulgaria
166 France  261  Sweden
156 Sweden  257  France
141 Armenia  249  Armenia
102 Lithuania  229  Poland
89 Belgium  200  Lithuania
76 Netherlands  181  Belgium
75 Latvia  153  Netherlands
69 Italy  153  Malta
69 Austria  151  Austria
62 Serbia  135  Israel
61 Hungary  132  Latvia
55 Azerbaijan  124  Italy
55 Georgia  117  Azerbaijan
52 Cyprus  115  Serbia
49 Poland  108  Hungary
34 Spain  104  Georgia
27 Israel  96  Cyprus
27 United Kingdom  77  Spain
23 Croatia  73  Croatia
18 Malta  62  United Kingdom
8 Germany  41  Czech Republic
1 Czech Republic  11  Germany

Some More Stats

Now it’s always tiring and difficult to go through all the sheets made available to us. But it’s a good thing the EBU kept it fully transparent this time, whereas in 2013 we only got relative lists with %! The following year, DR published the full votings, jury by jury, and televote. ÖRF and SVT decided to keep it up. But we can’t all take the full time to dive into them. Many people do, and they share with us whatever they find and think is worth mentionning. So we’ll share here what our regular reader Paschalis found for us: Serbia got 80 points from televoting (Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, FYROM, Montenegro and Switzerland gave them 12, while Austria and Italy gave them 4 points); Croatia got 33 points, all from ex-yugoslavian countries; Malta was only voted by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Australia; Germany got points only from Austria and Switzerland; Russia was voted by all countries; only one country didn’t vote for Ukraine and that was Iceland; UK was voted by Malta, Ireland and Australia.

Comment navigation

Newer Comments →

340 comments on “Eurovision 2016: Thoughts On The New Voting

  1. Jamala’s first reaction after the final:

  2. Stand in rehearsal of Australia with Josephine Thundell :

    She is pretty good I’d say

  3. An interesting BBC article trying to explain Poland’s success in this year’s esc: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36305838

    • I was thinking to post it here as well. There is not an in depth analysis at all but I agree with the author. Poland’s success can’t be explained solely on diaspora – UK and Ireland excluded though.

  4. Don’t know if this was posted but the show drew 52 thousand viewers in the USA, or a 0.03 rating. Not good.

    An infomercial on a bigger station at 8:30 in the morning drew 3 times the audience.

    • That’s… worse than I imagined. Maybe they’ll scrap trying to get the US involved, because those figures, along with segments like this, prove that we have no place at ESC any time soon.

      • It going to take time to build an audience. It’s gotten a lot more mentions in the media than previous years. Even my friends were aware it was this week which is a huge improvement over previous years.

        Once that happens it will move to a bigger network.

        It seems that the US media is covering it the British way so far, turning it into comedy.

        People outside the bubble look at it in a different way.

        • It’s just… can an audience really coalesce for Eurovision here in the states? And is it even worth making the effort if said audience is going to take the contest like the British, which is to say, a joke? If it is seen as a joke, why would we watch? The Brits watch because they have a history with it; I can see Americans just bringing it up occasionally to laugh at it and then refocusing on “domestic” things. We don’t participate, so of course there’s no interest because we don’t have anything vested in it.
          Now if the EBU are so hungry for American interest that they’d give us a spot at the contest… well then, there are far bigger problems that we’d have to tackle.

  5. Who decides the points given to each position from the public vote. SVT or EBU?
    I thought the points for each position were strange

  6. So, back from France! Have I missed something? …Oh yeah, that’s right, we’ve had a Eurovision final.

    Hooray for Ukraine! For the first time since 2007, my personal favourite won (the other years when that happened are 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1977, 1987 and 1996, so it’s not often). It was a great performance of a great song; dark, mysterious and painful, with true and sincere feelings coming directly from the heart. Too bad everyone here at home seems to look at it as a 100% political victory. I’d just like to say that I don’t care about the political leanings of the song. Political undertones don’t necessarily make the song better, nor worse. It’s all about how it’s presented and delivered.

    My other favourites in the final were Latvia and Georgia. I had some hope for Latvia but a 15th place got to be considered as a bit of a disappointment. Georgia, on the other hand, I was sure would never have anything to do with the top battle at all, and I’m just happy they made it to the final anyhow.

    Apart from that, we got what we got in the final. Most placings feel logical. And it’s nice to see how countries that usually do bad can make a total recovery and score well for once, like Bulgaria and France (even though I’m not a fan of any of those two songs). It proves that even if flags matter to some extent, it is the song that is the crucial thing.

    And speaking about flags, we had of course as usual way too much neighbour voting from the televoters; like Serbia, getting televoting points from eight countries in total, and six of them were 12 points… That’s a reason alone why the voting needs to be balanced.

    So the circus is heading towards Ukraine the next year. Hasta la vista, baby!

  7. Elodie was so high it’s hilarious; her participation is already iconic here:

  8. One interesting thing to analyze is how big the televoting score was. I put together the medium score for all the televoting winners through the years (minus Denmark 2013, which we still don’t know) and it’s kinda fascinating and sad for me to notice that Sergey scored even better than Loreen, not to mention Marija Serifovic.

    Italy 2015: 9,38
    Norway 2009: 9,22
    Estonia 2001: 9,00
    Russia 2016: 8,80
    Austria 2014: 8,64
    Denmark 2000: 8,48
    Sweden 2012: 8,37
    Finland 2006: 8,11
    Ukraine 2004: 8,00
    Latvia 2002: 7,65
    Sweden 1999: 7,41
    Israel 1998: 7,17
    Turkey 2003: 6,68
    Serbia 2007: 6,54
    Russia 2008: 6,48
    Germany 2010: 6,39
    Greece 2005: 6,05
    Azerbaijan 2011: 5,31

  9. I guess that the Ukrainian song next year will be about sufferings of Ukrainian nazists hiding in the forests in 1947 between their night raids in which they were killing Ukrainian peasants.

  10. It seems that viewership figures in Greece weren’t exceedingly hurt due to Greece’s absence from the final: ERT scored a whooping average of 31% market share on Saturday night, which reached 58% when the televoting thriller was being unveiled:


    On the other hand, the first semi where Greece was competing on Tuesday night scored a very miserable 8% market share…

    • Last year the average viewership was 54% and it peaked at around 75% during the results.

      • With Greece in the final though. I can’t think of another country having such figures while being absent from the final – impressive.

    • There is also a very heated discussion in Greece at the moment over the political message of Ukraine’s victory. On the one hand we have a communist party that gets 5% of the vote and has never completely renounced its stalinist tendencies; many pro-russian politicians and members of the public; and our own tense history of minorities fighting by the side of the german, italian and bulgarian occupying forces during WWII which does not predispose people well on the tatars’ story (a lot of “nazi-cleansing” accusations flying around).

      On the other hand the greek public can definitely relate better to Jamala’s music than countries further west (proven by the fact that she got 6 points from the televote plus 2 from the juries despite the tension); we have our own history of being uprooted (a large part of the population lived in Turkey until the 1920s); and also our own history of vibrant greek communities living in Crimea and around the Black Sea who were also deported by Stalin even before the war, accused of being “foreign bourgeois moles”.

      So all these factors, plus Eurovision’s popularity in Greece make for the perfect social media storm over the last few days.

      • I also watched some very lame reactions by people who call themselves journalists and used their time on air to hurl lies and false accusations against Ukraine.One of them talked about the far-right Ukrainian goverment(!)and the other one today said that he signed that petition because the juries pushed Ukraine to victory.

        • Yes, but let’s not get carried away and be too pro-Ukrainian here. When the subject is the Second World War, a lot of people have very heated and divided opinions. It is only normal.

          There are even some people who legitimately fear that ethnic minorities who had to leave Greece because of their stance during the war (like the slavs in northern Greece and the albanians in NW Greece), might do a Jamala next year. Of course these people are exaggerating and the situations were in no way similar: These people were not deported by a dictator and they left in conditions of civil war, a lot of them with guns in their hands. However as I said it is only normal that people have strong opinions on the matter.

          • I disagree again.I talked about 2 journalists and not your random 70 year old neighbor.When you talk on nationwide tv,you can’t just refer to the far-right Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian neo-nazis as a fact when it’s all just propaganda.But then we can survive having our very different views on things

  11. For the credibility of the contest I can only hope the winner next year will also be the winner of the tele vote.
    A few days have passed and I still have a bad taste about this year’s result. A winner that didn’t win either the tele or the jury vote is plain wrong imo. Even though everything went according to the rules, this is not how I hope eurovision will evolve.
    This has nothing to do with Ukraine or Jamala or 1944 by the way, which is imo a better winner then Russia would have been, and I always opposed the idea of having Australia in eurovision. It is more a matter of principle.

    • I hope Australia’s special invitation is finally rescinded (after all they will have their own asian contest in a few months). I also hope that the new jury ritual of collectively punishing the presumed televote winner stops. No more full ranking of all songs and no more collective deliberation – each juror should work alone without knowledge of their colleagues’ scores.

      Not that this will change much especially in cases where there is a lot of political tension ( like between Russia and Ukraine or Armenia and Azerbaijan). And it will not change the juries’ tendencies to reward soporific, conformist songs. Just like nothing will change the fact that the televote frequently rewards countries based on proximity (even though the few songs that break through the noise generally get votes from everywhere). But at least results will be viewed as more fair, balanced and definitely less divisive.

    • I would agree if a. there was a landslide televoting winner but this was not the case this year.There were 2 songs neck and neck in the televoting battle and one of them won fair and square.I’d add that Ukraine should be the one complaining here because they didn’t receive enough jury support given the quality of the song and the overall performance.b.Russia is top-5 with televoting almost every year.They even reached top-6 in 2014 with a lame song and performance.So,they only need an extra televoting push to win televoting.I don’t think the juries had to award more pts to Russia just because it was a favorite.Wouldn’t that constitute positive bias the opposite of what you accuse them now?
      The problem,imo lies with the juries ability to vote down songs.They’re still able to rank all songs plus the fact they give landlide victories to songs that the average viewer can’t really explain why they’re considered such masterpieces getting the unanimous and overwhelming support from them.

      • Sergey got an average of 8,8 and points from the televote in every country, versus Jamala’s 7,9 average. So a very big victory, even though not as huge as Il Volo’s. I am not saying they should have ranked him first, but If you judge “the overall impression of the song” as the juries are instructed, getting him lower than Malta (!!) or even France reveals malice in my opinion. Even though I think a lot of it is Russia’s fault for turning his staging into a power projection as I have written here before. Polina’s more mellow and vulnerable approach had the juries eating out of ther hands and almost no-one downmarked her. Of course the fact that they preffered “A million voices” doesn’t exactly vouch for their musical credibility (even though it is a guilty pleasure of mine)!

        As for Jamala, yes I agree that from an artistic point of view she should have finished first with the juries. However to be fair to them (see? I try to be fair to them once in a while), a lot of them genuinely did not want politics in the contest and did not want to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine thing. So an awful lot of them voted for Australia as the only song that could break the top-3 apart from these two. I am not defending them – they shoud never vote tactically and cynically like that. However there is something to be said about their disapproval of politics in the contest, despite the fact that it leads them to reward anodyne, soporific songs instead.

        • So,you can understand why they didn’t support Ukraine enough but not Russia.Ok!
          I don’t understand all this moaning on Russia’s placing tbh.The juries top-3 seems very plausible,imo and there’s nothing weird about it.Malta was really overrated but it was just 7 pts ahead of Russia anyway.I would expect Sweden to do better with the juries tbh.There’s a number of countries that could have done better with the juries but they didn’t and they haven’t been complaining about it.
          I can’t compare Russia with SWE 15 because it sounded much more current and into 2015’s music industry than Russia.I would compare RUS 16 with SWE 11 and GRE 09 and what those songs’ jury placing?Sweden was 8th and Greece 11th so Russia with a more effective stage presentation ended up in 5th place.
          Do you remember what was the fans’ first reaction was we heard “You’re the only one”?It’s catchy but sounds so 10 years ago.

          • No, I wrote that a lot of it is the russians’ fault for turning this into a power projection and further polarising things which was the last thing they needed. And that the juries wanted to escape both of them. So I do “understand” it as much as with Ukraine without defending it. However you can’t deny he is a world-class performer. There is no comparison to either Sakis Rouvas or Eric Saade who couldn’t even sing and had kitchier and less impressive presentations by a factor of 100. Plus with the kind of songs the juries voted for, I very much doubt that “outdated” was ever a problem. Belgium had an outdated, terribly unoriginal song and a bad singer and got as many jury points as him.

            Instead of this power trip with the black uniforms and riding on top of their world, he should have been a hedonistic gay Adonis ripping off his shirt. This is the only image that would have reduced anti-russian bias in a lot of western countries. Like Polina last year who was the vulnerable girl afraid of getting booed and the West showered her with points.

            • He’s indeed a good performer but i wouldn’t use the term “world-class”.
              The staging was more effective than both Eric’s and of course Sakis’ one which was rather lame but that’s what i said too that he got his extra pts from the effective staging although you can’t really compare it with the staging of songs from 7 or 5 years ago.The contest has moved on tachnology-wise since then.
              In all honesty,i really doubt a gay Adonis approach and ripping off his shirt would earn him more jury pts.
              Since the juries last year against the backdrop of a more polarizing and tense political situation favored Polina and her sugary,cynical ballad then we can’t really accuse them of voting down Sergey this year.

            • Unlike Italy, nobody thought she would win though and unlike him she did not come with this “I am here to win” attitude. So it was safer for them – they were busy downmarking Italy. This year Russia had a pin-up idol for gay men and an addictive pop song and they turned it into a militaristic superpower extravaganza. Even Belgium that I find obnoxious tried to show something positive and Russia didn’t.

              So it is a combination of the jury collusion in voting down the presumed televote winner they did not approve of (last year it was Italy, not Russia) and the russians having a completely wrong approach in order to overcome that – in fact they were so over-confident they did not even see it was a problem. Really, you can’t expect votes from the czech or the polish jury showing the russian superhuman. But perhaps you can make a russian victory more palatable to them if you show them another more carefree and fun-loving side of Russia.

            • And the same goes for Australia. A lot of people feel strongly about Australia permanently in the contest as being a step too far (did you notice that this year they stopped saying “Europe and Australia” this and “Europe and Australia” that? Every time they referred to the audience watching at home they only said Europe full stop). And they stepped right on their toes with this over-glitzy, over-glamorous appearance. Which is even more bizarre when you send a simple girl who won a talent-show and not some big diva. It was like screaming “we are here to buy your contest”.

              Of course the juries had no problem with glitzy but this arrogance of money definitely rubbed the public the wrong way. And they weren’t that crazy about Australia competing again in the first place.

    • Well I think this is the reality of the contest now. I mean the winner SHOULD actually be a mix of jury- and televote-support in the current system. Otherwise we can just scrap the whole 50/50 system and call it a day imo :P

    • Why ? The result is a compromise and a good one – exactly what the rules are aiming for. For ocne I hope juries continue to do their job and restricting the dangerous for the contest televoting tendencies. Nothing would be more of a drawback for the contest than a russian victory this year. On every level.

      Australia should stay and hopefully win soon enough in my opinion. They elevate the musical level of the contest significantly, they take it seriously and showcase enthusiasm.

      P.S. I see the “juries punishing the televoting winner” conspiracy theories continue by the usual suspects..

      I am still waiting for an answer to all my points of course but more specifically on how these evil jurors know beforehand what the televoting result is to downvote the holy televoting winner…I doubt I will ever get one.

      As long as no common sense restrictions on televoting occur then the very basic checks and balances this vote provides are necessary – and will often lead to compomise which is a good thing imo in lack of something better (100 % jury vote or televoting restrictions).

      • P.S. Can I have a single piece of evidence that :

        a) juries knew Italy would win televote last year ?

        b) they “downvoted” (which is not what happened – they ranked songs and Italy was not among their top choices – that’s how the full ranking works but for the sake of the conspiracy theory let’s go with that) Italy on purpose and was that effort co ordinated among all juries or a majority of them ? Did jurors from different countries came in contact and talked about “downvoting” Italy ?

        I will keep posing those questions btw – televoting lovers can write big text walls with fancy wording to bestow superficial legitimacy to their ramblings – but until they answer some basic factual questions (which they avoid constantly), it will all be going in vain imo.

        • plus Italy is a weird case: the French jury, which is quite pro-modern stuff (12 to Aminata and 10 to Loic) had Italy 15th in 2015 (even though it won our televote) but had it winner in 2011 and 2016! I genuinely think it was way too old fashion and pompous for the juries. As you rightfully said, juries vote before televote, and while they could know who did well in semis, Italy had no televote scores in the final and ORF even gave them the last place in the draw!

          • Everything you say is rational and factual of course.

          • Italy and Russia winning the televote was a non-brainer IMO. Yet again I don’t believe in the orchestrated and deliberate downgrading already suggested by some.

            • Well that doesnt mean we’re out of surprises: Australia won its semi in front of Ukraine, juries may have supported one over the other but the final was a different case

            • You mean winning overall? Do you find this surprising? It was always meant to be a race between those two anyway. Personally, I expected Australia to win the jury vote and Russia the televote. What I didn’t see coming was Ukraine’s great televote result – points-wise.

          • Italy 2015 would have been a great populist winner and it would have opened up the ESC to a different cultural region of Europe. Plus it would have encouraged countries to look to their own musical traditions (as only Ukraine did this year) instead of swamping the contest with mainstream wannabe hits this year. As for the result of the french jury last year, it was the countries closer to Italy that hurt it most in the jury count and for obvious reasons (they thought the televote there would be even stronger). For instance in Germany, Il Volo came first in the televote and 18th in the jury. Of course they knew who would be likely to do very well with the public, they are juries not deaf!

            I am not surprised though. Judging from Austria’s position this year (she came 8th in the televote and third to last in the jury count) the main criterion for jury selection must be chronic constipation :)

            • I dont think they “knew” it would do well. What to do of Kaas for instance, who did horribly in televote… in the West, to do very well East!

            • Even if they couldn’t tell from the performance and the reception in the hall like everybody else could tell watching Eurovision that night, they can read the betting odds which had Italy in the top-2 like anybody else.

            • but in 2011 France was top 2 in bookies and 2nd with OGAE votes, but got only 11th with juries… and Italy, absolute last in bookies, won by a landslide

            • Italy’s return was a big deal and called for an appropriate welcome back gift if they were to stay in the contest. They wouldn’t have come back after 14 years only to finish last? Also the pre-contest favourite very obviously failed on the night. I still think it is the most unremarkable song they sent since their return, even though Emma in 2014 takes the crown for the worst live performance.

          • Now,let’s be honest!Of course they can sense the big favorites.I have watched jury relearsals online and even without the official feed you can hear how the audience reacts to the big favorites.Ukraine.Australia,Austria,Bulgaria and Russia were the most popular in the arena.And then i see some jury scores and they are very weird.Some of those favorites last and second last.I can almost imagine a convseration between them: Jury 1:Ukraine is so popular this year,they may win.Jury 2: Don’t tell me that song has a chance.No way!I’m putting her second last in my rankings.

          • I second this comment so hard!

  12. Since we can’t really prove that the juries vote down certain songs,i’ll point out again the main problems with them:
    a.There’s a trend in the last 2 editions:Juries give a landslide victory to one song when no one can see the reason a jury of PROFESSIONALS would award the song such a big win(SWE 15,AUS 16).In fact there’s no reason.This way it’s very difficult for the televoting to influence the final result since the latter has only once given such a landslide win to the favorite of all favorites(NOR 09).This year thank God,Australia had a poor televoting showing so televoters got the uppen hand.
    b.They’re still able to vote down songs.Ukraine f.i was in the top-3 of 3 jury members in Denmark but the 4th ranked Jamala 26th so if she hadn’t made the mistake Ukraine would get 0 pts from the Danish jury.Too much power is given to ONE person so they need to add 5 more members to each national jury in order to minimize the effect of positive and negative bias.

    • These are all true. Except maybe the juries all agreeing, because they’re NOT all professionals but a lot of talent show people and stuff like that, so their taste are skewed too similarly. So I’m all for the change you call for.

      I feel insanely weird that I agree with BOTH sides and agree with almost all comments on this site. Can’t people LISTEN to one another and say “hey we’re both right, both votings suck and HEY we got a rather good result regardless and that should give us hope and make us keep calling for the reform we find fair in both televote and juries”…

      • I agree that we got the best result possible because of this collision but i want to see if this trend continues next year too.I know that many of them are not professionals.I feel they vote based only on the impression and their taste just like regular televoters.The fact they’re all together partying like a group of people watching the shows to have fun doesn’t help either.They may influence each others votes in more that one way.

      • Problem is that apart from the winner I personally don’t think we got a very good result overall exactly because all my fears of what the new system would bring came true..

        P.S. I am the only person probably openly asking for televoting reform…

        • I am too, and everyone on ET did agree on the one vote per phone or at least only 5 votes per phone max but for 5 different songs, with the impossibility to repeat a vote for a single country on the same phone

          • I have expressed careful skepticism for that kind of measure simply because imo it ignores the profile of the average diaspora voter. I feel like even under that measure the televoter willing to vote for his/her favourite song will give their one vote through their one phone and that’s it. The diaspora televoter will be willing to go over many phone numbers and give his one vote to his country through each thus the impact is hardly limited.

            Moreover, I kinda feel like this measure may be counerproductive in another way : Let’s say you are a polish national living in the UK – you will throw your 19 votes to your homeland and may reserve that one vote for a song you may actually like – the 1 vote per number regime eliminates even that possibility of the 1 out of 20 votes being an actual preference vote, the emotional vote will be the priority.

            All in all the 1 vote per number proposition imo will reduce the actual NUMBER of votes but it will not change the actual voting distribution unfortunately – it will just scale down the numbers.

            Now the 5 votes per number but 1 vote allowed per country is an interesting idea that could be discussed.

            My opinion remains solid that more drastic measures are needed :

            a) Each year the broadcaster in co ordination with the EBU will maintain a list of the average points a country has received through televoting from another country. The top 3 of that list in each country won’t be able to get votes from that certain country…Each year this list will be updated – if another country starts receiving higher points on average then it will replace one of the countries on the list, it will be a dunamic process. The juries will be able to vote for all countries.
            b) Based on the televoting distribution each year the EBU can set certain criteria (numerical) that if fulfilled then it will declare this country a “jury voting only” country for a single year as a form of “punishment” for consistently regional voting patterns. Next year they will restore its televoting status and if they find themselves again fulfilling the criteria set forward, they would again become “jury voting only” country the next year etc – they will be given annual chances to communicate to the televoters certain things about their voting habits.
            c) Final idea, the one I have promoted the most : televoting DQ criteria. For example we take the criteria set in proposition one (average points awarded to a certain country through televoting – in a span of 5-10 years for example) and if the top points go again to countries with high averages in that country’s televote they are disqualified immediately same as jury votes can be disqualified if they are found to violate the rules set forward by the EBU (too similar rankings etc).

            Many consider my proposals radical – I think they are perfectly fair and can help mold a more responsible televoting culture and eventually they won’t be needed hopefully.

    • *have gotten

    • I can see perfectly well personally why Sweden 15 and Australia 16 won the jury vote by such margins and I approve of that. They are both contemporary, well performed songs with a cohesive theme outside the “I love you, you love me” narrative. I can also see why Ukraine was in the jury top 2 – it provided the needed diversity but the standards of the australian entry exist here as well in terms of performance and cohesiveness.

      • Ukraine was in the jury top-2 thanks to Eastern juries awarding it top points.
        Ther problem with you is that you’re absolute.It’s black or white.

        • I am not as absolute as the other side and at the very least I do not go about conspiracy theories though to support my position. I support my 100 % jury position with numerical arguments I think.

    • There is also the tiny matter of the San Marino televote that has not been discussed. In the official results page they say that since their televoting is invali and those results have been replaced with the results of an unspecified pool of countries (it actually says that the jury votes have been replaced but I think that is a mistake). Now I guess Italy must be important in this pool of countries, since both Italy and San Marino gave Ukraine 12.

      If you subtract 12 due to the fake San Marino televote and 12 from the danish jury does Jamala even win? She only won by 23 points…

      • Oh God.Jamala’s win again.The rule about microstates was announced earlier in the year so we all knew it would be implemented in SM’s case.She would win again because Australia got 5 pts too and Russia 10.

        • Yes you are right about that, but what about the unspecified pool of countries? We still don’t know which ones they are (I don’t see them in the results page at least), and a different pool might have yielded a different result…

  13. “For instance in Germany, Il Volo came first in the televote and 18th in the jury. Of course they knew who would be likely to do very well with the public, they are juries not deaf!”

    This is pure insanity, we have crossed to the twilight zone officially..So the 5 jurors guessed that the average german televoter would go for something grandioze, nostalgic in italian, something totally outside the german culture right ?

    I am kind of glad the other side fails to provide any legitimate anti-jury argumentation tbh and has to resort to those science fiction scenarios.

    Personally I will continue letting the numbers talk.

    For example, Moldova televote in the final :

    12p to Russia
    10p to Ukraine
    8p to Azerbaijan
    7p to Armenia
    6p to France
    5p to Australia
    4p to Austria
    3p to Lithuania
    2p to Bulgaria
    1p to Latvia

    For the record the jury vote contains in the top 5 2 neighbouring countries (Ukraine 1st, Russia 4th and 3 non neighbouring ones (Australia 2nd, Spain 3rd, Sweden 5th)

      • Again, imagine what France would get here without diaspora and neighbouring votes…And as I am going through, again in FYR Macedonia France 11th on televote, again denied televoting points there..

        France is a moral top 5 in televoting imo if pure preference televoting counts from what I’ve seen so far.

    • Il Volo were grandiose, but definitely not as grandiose as Wagner.

      Did Moldova’s top-2 coincide with the top-2 in the whole of Europe? What a shocker! They should have voted for the UK.

      • Oh that’s how you are going to twist that one ok.

        I mean asking you to admit that if Sergey Lazarev was James Collins from London and represented the UK with “You are the only one” and the exact same show he would at best be where France is as the moldovan televote is something that’s never going to happen right ?

        I shall proceed and provide the televoting results of all balkan countries and their 12p to Serbia then.

  14. Bosnia and Herzegovina televoting in the final :

    12p to Serbia
    10p to Croatia
    8p to Azerbaijan
    7p to Ukraine
    6p to Russia
    5p to Austria
    4p to France
    3p to Australia
    2p to Bulgaria
    1p to Hungary

    Sooo..the top 3 consists of the only two neighbouring ex yugoslav countries in the final and the sole majority muslim nation in the final – remind me how well did those do ? Oh right Serbia placed 18th overall, Croatia 23rd and Azerbaijan 17th…

    • Well,in your last sentence you give the answer by yourself.No neighbourly voting can save a song that gets no support from the rest of Europe and the juries.
      There are all these televoting and diaspora myths that are being debunked.Any country can fail(maybe not Russia though.lol).For years and years people were saying Greece will never miss the final no matter what their song is.Guess what!We failed and we failed big time.

      • You miss my point. Entirely. Those are the overall results – I should have probably provided the televoting results. Serbia with solely its regional support got 80 televoting points and a very high 11th place. Azerbaijan an extremely high 12th place as well there – only the jury contribution restrained these televoting results.

        Not any country can fail let’s be honest. There is a set of eastern countries that simply cannot fail. And if they “failed” even, they would just be substituted by other countries in the same region.

        A very realistic question is : Can Armenia/Azerbaijan/Russia/Ukraine etc ever come last or 2nd last in an esc final ? Nope, it’s numerically impossible – juries have dared to have Russia last though in the 2011 final.

    • France again! wow we WERE popular after all ;)

  15. 4 years anniversary at WordPress today! Woo hoo!

Comment navigation

Newer Comments →

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: