- September 28, 2009
Please post any and all discussions regarding the contest itself, host country and city, organisation, rumours and other topics not related to any specific country's selection process.
I don't think punishments can be dished out until the EBU addresses professional juries also consistently being bias in certain countries. Greece & Cyprus as well as Romania & Moldova are prime examples. Also on the opposite end, Armenia & Azerbaijan who never vote for each other. The EBU didn't address the threats that members of the public got from the Azeri KGB because they voted for Armenia in 2009...
In 2009 mother Russia hosted the contest and the EBU daren't get involved in a dispute between two of her children lolThere are weird voting patterns that happened in the past, I do agree. I don't know why at that time they closed their eyes on it but maybe they succeeded in making eurovision that big of a show and a brand that they no longer feel "afraid" about calling out countries ?
I'm just speculating but we can argue that participating is more important than ever and it's seen as a privilege*. The EBU is in the big position now and it's like "do it right or we'll call your asses out". I'll add that we have now Martin Osterdahl (spelling?) and he could have a more strict approach to the rules and the voting compared to Jon Ola Sand which always seemed Mr-World-Peace-no-big-waves-please in the liking of the fandom.
* But i'll bet if the Big 5 would have done that they would have probably said nothing.
this seems rather obvious.The broadcasters had to have something to do with it, otherwise how would 30 "independent" jurors decide to meet, when they aren't even supposed to know each other.
You're not seriously saying juries should be proportional to the populations of their countries are you? It needs to be a fair playing field how can you not see thatwhy does a country like san Marion have 5 "professional jduges" as well as a country like Italy with far more inhabitnts..
This also wouldn't work because it doesn't give San Marino less power, it just gives each individual Juror more power. An interesting concept that I read was that the EBU could create a group of 50 juries per country, and each of them will vote like a normal juror would. Then 10 out of those 50 jury votes will be chosen on the nights (semi and grand) to then represent the jury vote from that country. This is to make it harder for political voting. You can also compare the ones voted and the ones that weren't to search for voting patterns. I personally think that this would just cause too much drama from the bubble, especially people like me whose favourites aren't usually very popular. This is because when one juror gives someones favourite 12 points and they don't get picked, people can complainYou're not seriously saying juries should be proportional to the populations of their countries are you? It needs to be a fair playing field how can you not see that
Honestly, it will make juries more predictable, but nobody knows that yet. Middling over more people means less variance.We should not so much resolve the question of the political vote (which rarely happens due to force majeure) but the geopolitical vote (which we witness every year). I am not upset by Ukraine's victory (which is deserved) but by the usual 12 points from Cyprus to Greece and vice versa (this is one example among many). Since I see any change as difficult, I believe that we will remain in the same situation we are in today. Who knows, maybe the juries will only be expanded and these will be chosen just before the Contest to make the final result of each jury more unpredictable. Only in this do I see a possibility.
It's a dog chasing its own tail. We all call for improvement but what can actually improve the situation without leaving any points uncovered? Are we sure the EBU wants these improvements? What I am sure of is that the likelihood of things staying the same is very strong.Honestly, it will make juries more predictable, but nobody knows that yet. Middling over more people means less variance.
No I think top countries in juries get more points and bottom countries less. The nature of juries and televotes is very different. We the televotes only vote for 1 country and even with our 20 votes we can't mimic what juries are doing, which is make a whole ranking and than average it out in some logatitmic way over the 5 juries. So when 10 juries come in, there are more people voting (in this case) for UK, Sweden and Spain. Hence they will get more points. And lower nations probably get even less points. But juries and televotes wil never be the same. Just like Sheldon Riley would sing.It's a dog chasing its own tail. We all call for improvement but what can actually improve the situation without leaving any points uncovered? Are we sure the EBU wants these improvements? What I am sure of is that the likelihood of things staying the same is very strong.