A new way of placing

[Fluke]

This year's winner was controversial, not just because it was bland and IMO pretty much crap, but because it only came 2nd with televote AND 3rd with the jury votes.

Clearly this is not a good way to select a winner - especially unfair to the televote winner, Norway's KEiiNO, who got unrewarded. Besides doing away with the juries entirely, or changing the criteria for whatever they're supposed to vote for, how could this situation be avoided again?

One way would be to decide that an entry simply cannot place higher than it did in at least one of the camps - televote or jury. Meaning the winner would have to be either televote or jury #1, or both. Furthermore, the #2 would have to be at least #2 (or #1) with one of the camps, the #3 at least 3rd and so on.

Other than this, the combined points of jury and televotes would be used to rank the entries, except when the formerly stated rule forbids it.

Following this rule, the 2019 results would have been:

1-Norway
2-Netherlands
3-Italy
4-Russia
5-Switzerland (Curiously, this is also the exact televote top 5, and 2-5 is the "actual" top 4 with Norway only placing 6th)
6-Macedonia
7-Azerbaijan
8-Australia
9-Iceland
10-Czech Republic

This rule could also be extended even further, to require entries that are, for example #1, to place above entries that don't have that ranking in either cap. The combined score would then only be used to decide the placing between each of the entries with the same "highest placement", for example #3/#8 versus #5/#3. So the top places would go to the two #1s (or one, if it's the same with both camps), then the two (or one) #2s, the #3s and so on. This is what the results would have been with that system:

1-Norway
2-Macedonia
3-Netherlands
4-Sweden
5-Italy
6-Russia
7-Switzerland
8-Azerbaijan
9-Australia
10-Iceland

I think both results are pretty fair, personally i'm leaning somewhat more towards the second, though it's also overly biased towards the random whims of juries, while the first is really close to the televotes, the main difference is Macedonia being much higher, and the Czech Republic, which were actually #24 in the televotes!

Overall, whatever you think of it, one thing is a fact: NEVER have the actual #1 been so low with both juries and televotes, and never has both the jury and televote #1 placed so low in the combined result (6th and 7th place!). That along with the Belarus "fake votes" scandal and other things further mess it up, but still, here's my idea anyway. What do you think?

 

[NemesisNick]

So what if the Netherlands were 3rd in the jury vote and 2nd in the televote this year? The Netherlands ended up with the most points altogether (492 on the night, corrected to 498 on 22 May). Each country's jury total and televote total is added together to produce a combined total. The winner is the country with the most points altogether, even if it won neither the jury vote nor the televote. A similar situation arose in 2016; Ukraine was 2nd in the jury vote and 2nd in the televote, but won outright as it had the most points. Thankfully that year, Australia which won the jury vote (but finished just 4th in the televote) finished 2nd overall, and Russia, which won the televote (but finished just 5th in the jury vote) ended up 3rd overall. Just accept that anomalies like these sometimes occur with the current system.

Here are the ESC 2019 finalists, and their final scores (jury and televoting points combined), in the orders you've suggested:

Scenario 1:

Norway 331
The Netherlands 498
Italy 472
Russia 370
Switzerland 364
North Macedonia 305
Azerbaijan 302
Australia 284
Iceland 232
Czech Republic 157

How can you put Norway, with only 331 points, above The Netherlands, Italy, Russia and Switzerland, all of whom had higher overall scores than Norway?

Scenario 2

Norway 331
North Macedonia 305
The Netherlands 498
Sweden 334
Italy 472
Russia 370
Switzerland 364
Azerbaijan 302
Australia 284
Iceland 232

Just by looking at this set of scores, it's even more of a mess.

 

[Mainshow]

Where is the dislike button?

Everyone can have their own favourites and I can understand the frustration.. but calling "Arcade" bland? - Norway is basically the definition of a bland, trashy, fun Eurovision track. I enjoy it but it's neither contemporary nor a quality entry.

The system we've got right now is the fairest we've had since the introduction of the juries 2009.
Each part's votes count 50%. The Netherlands is the rightful winner.

 

[ESC94]

Where is the dislike button?

Everyone can have their own favourites and I can understand the frustration.. but calling "Arcade" bland? - Norway is basically the definition of a bland, trashy, fun Eurovision track. I enjoy it but it's neither contemporary nor a quality entry.

The system we've got right now is the fairest we've had since the introduction of the juries 2009.
Each part's votes count 50%. The Netherlands is the rightful winner.

I totally agree with Mainshow. Changing the system every time your personal favourite doesn´t win is the worst thing we could do. I also think that Keiino have no right to complain, they knew the rules before they entered the competition.

 

[Ana Raquel]

But Arcade is bland sis lmao sometimes bland songs can win the whole thing (see Yugoslavia 1989 as an example - and it was one of my favorites that year). And Norway is not bland. You're right about not being contemporary, but I can't see how it's bland with a freaking joik solo bridge.

bland =/= bad/unfair arcade is pretty bad tho otherwise netta would have more praise. no matter whether you love it or hate it, it is memorable.
however i disagree on duncan's victory being controversial, it's one of the least controversial winners of the decade - not even his ambiguous "music first" speech sparked controversy.

and i don't think keiino wants to complain lmao

 

[tuorem]

Why argue about "Arcadull" and "Spirit In The Past" when we can all stan "Soldi" instead? #ExistentialQuestion

On a seriously note, yes juries are weird sometimes, but Keiino not being part of their top 10 was obvious af from day one. They usually don't like fun songs and schlagers, instead they like to support entries that televoters couldn't care less about ("Friend Of A Friend", "Don't Come Easy", "Dance You Off", "Walk On Water", etc.) while still not rewarding the songs that do have an extra something. That's their concept, we cannot understand

 

[HayashiM]

[MENTION=5921]Fluke[/MENTION], I am surely in a minority here, but generally speaking, I quite like your first concept. However, once juries give less points to the televote winner than the televote gives to the juries winner, the juries winner becomes the overall winner, while the televote winner can once again end up 8th-ish. So I would be happy with your first system, with the only modification that the televote's winner becomes the overall winner, no matter what.

(stones getting thrown at my head in 3... 2... )

 

[Fluke]

I think most will still agree that there is some jury manipulation going on, with weird results, and that is just not acceptable for the sake of the contest, to anyone.

For that matter, does anyone know why juries are set to watch a rehearsal rather than the televised performance? They could even have a special section in the audience, or just some separate room where the juries sit by their countries flags and cameras occasionally zoom by them to show they're there. I think that would actually improve the public's perception of the juries, but i guess they prefer to keep them hidden for some reason.

 

[Mainshow]

I think most will still agree that there is some jury manipulation going on, with weird results, and that is just not acceptable for the sake of the contest, to anyone.

For that matter, does anyone know why juries are set to watch a rehearsal rather than the televised performance? They could even have a special section in the audience, or just some separate room where the juries sit by their countries flags and cameras occasionally zoom by them to show they're there. I think that would actually improve the public's perception of the juries, but i guess they prefer to keep them hidden for some reason.

Jury members watch the dress rehearsal on screens in their home countries.

Some broadcasters already complain about the costs and asks record labels to step in or even demands the artist to pay for accommodation, performances, etc.
There's no way that these broadcasters will pay jury members' costs for flights, accommodation, further expenses.

I really believe that you are a passionate Eurovision fan and that you have good intentions but Eurovision already struggles a bit because it has become too big... We still need to keep pragmatic and financial things in mind.