Let's go guys!
The logic doesn’t hold there.
You definitely have a point here, but I for my part don't want a performance to be judged by the staging only if a song is lacklustre. And additionally it would be nice and fair if the people watch every performance to decide which one they want to vote for. But that's just me thinking that way.
I’d rather the vote didn’t open until everyone performed too as that seems the most fair way. It also seems less open to being potentially abused by those with nefarious intentions or what have you,
No, it can be people not watching the show, just coming to support the artist/country after hearing about it on the internet. With the 15 minute windows, these people should wait to vote or leave, now they can vote immediately then turn the tv off.
They could have the automatic qualifiers perform after the first recap. The snag is, people are busy voting then (if eligible), some might use the interval for a loo break / time to make a drink, etc before the qualifiers are announced. I've used semi-final interval time in past years to post my points of view on the competing semi-final songs (which I've typed during the performances), and qualification preferences, on my blog, and links to it from ESC United Forum and Facebook. Hence I for one haven't paid much attention to whatever is shown in the interval (bar the first recap). At least having the automatic qualifiers perform "just for show" between the competing semi-finalists ensures people pay attention to the automatic qualifiers' performances, just like the competing semi-finalists' performances.Automatic finalists actually performing in the semis is something i wanted since forever. But why .... would they put them in between competing performances?
I don't even want to think about what will happen if it is keeping the lines open through the jury results
That would be a decent one. I'm guessing it would be tough to find 370 people that haven't been a juror in the past.
10 jurors per country seems difficult to find. Even adding to 6 or 7 is good enough.
Wrong Idea, with this, the jury votes would look more and more the same, loreen would have reach 380 points with this ( Look the ogae votes) so Basically it would make it worse.I'm hoping the other big change is increasing the number of jurors from 5 to at least 10.
I don't even want to think about what will happen if it is keeping the lines open through the jury results
This. It's one of those things where having more jurors feels like it would be fairer because 5 does feel really small. But if you increase the number of jurors, you eliminate some of the noise and eccentricity in individual jurors votes, and Eurovision needs that noise. I don't really want to see half of the countries getting <10 jury points in the final and a small few getting 300+, and that's what it'll trend towards if you increase the size of the jury.
I hope it's something to do with the way votes are counted (which does NOT include adding 9, 11, 13, or other numbers)
Well, I hadn't thought of that. My argument was based on - the larger the number, the more difficult it is to influence one another, bribe etc. But I see your point.
Sweden did it in 2016, so yes it is possible
