Contact us

Do you like the new voting system?

Do you like the new voting system?

  • Love It!

    61 31.1%
  • Hate It!

    56 28.6%
  • Unsure

    79 40.3%

  • Total voters
    196

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
5,050
Location
Hannover
I think the countries which are eliminated will still have public telephone voting, and they will get to vote for the 26 finalists, just like the viewers in the grand final countries will have phone voting. Obviously in both cases they can only vote for countries performing in the final. Those countries not in the final will have all 26 finalists to choose from, those in the final will have all but their own country's entry to choose from.

Yes of course they do - That's what I meant. It's just not that easy to explain. :lol:
Gonna try it again:
Every country is going to give two sets of points ... first we're going only to see the separate jury-points of each country. We're not going to see the separate televoting-results though. Those televoting-points of all the 43 countries (58 points per country) will be added up...
 

midnightsun

Veteran
Joined
February 26, 2016
Posts
3,927
Location
Germany
On one hand, the new system is very exciting, especially when it comes to the end and nobody knows the winner until the very last points.
On the other hand, though, the televotes' presentation is quite boring. It should've been the other way round. Televotes are more important for presentation than the jury votes. It feels like something is missing. I'm sitting on the fence concerning the new voting system.
 

Jukica

(Retired) Admin
Joined
October 1, 2009
Posts
13,892
Location
Croatia
^ Agree :/ I'm unsure about new voting system, but I'll give it a chance :D maybe it'll lead to more exciting results
 

Chorizo

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Posts
4,251
I see some drama coming our way in case the new system will lead to a different winner than the old system would have.

Since the new system increases the influence of neighbor and diaspora voting, Russia could be the biggest winner of the new system.
 

macmillanandwife

Active member
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
181
In San Marino, they could show the ESC Grand Final in a cinema somewhere in San Marino on Saturday 14 May 2016. People wanting to see it at that cinema would buy a ticket, just like going to see a film there, and each member of the audience could be given an electronic gadget, e.g. tablet, on which to vote for their favourite song during the first five minutes after the singing ends. The gadgets could be set so that everyone's votes would be sent over an internal wi-fi network to a central computer in the manager's office The computer would aggregate the results together, and that cinema could send them by e-mail, on behalf of SMRTV, to SVT in Stockholm. Surely this would be a better sample of the Sammarise public than what the EBU have proposed.

That could work! I looked it up and they do have a roughly 850 seat theater at the edge of San Marino called the Teatro Nuovo in Serravalle. They can rent the theater for the night and do a Eurovision party there with Valentina! :) SMRTV and the EBU can work together to make an internal system for San Marino and other microstates in Europe. They can pilot this with JESC 2016 and see what happens. Half their votes cannot just be disregarded because their population is too small.
 

NemesisNick

Well-known member
Joined
June 2, 2012
Posts
1,288
Location
Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom
Some users have felt it would have been better to have had the spokespersons announce each country's televoting points, and have the presenters call out the jury totals at the end.
I would have preferred the presenters introducing the televoting results, not the jury ones. This makes it jury-centrical, not people-centrical, if you know what I mean. Apart from that, there is substantially no difference.
For instance, I would much rather the individual countries votes be the results of the televote, and the combined vote the jury vote, as I think each country should be giving the verdict of the people. Whereas lumping my vote in together with someone from Vladivostok makes it a lot less personal and certainly makes you feel that you would have a lot less impact on the overall result.

I understand that they've done this to eliminate bloc voting almost entirely, but I still prefer the televote to be connected to each country.
I still can't help thinking that this is all the wrong way round. It should be the televote that each country gives individually, then just collate the jury vote - after all, the juries are unrepresentative anyway, so I am quite content for the UK's jury vote to be lumped together with the likes of Russia. But I'm not really content at my own televote being lumped together with other countries, it will definitely put me off voting personally. Whether it's true or not, you do feel as though you will have less impact on the result. In the past you always knew that if you voted for certain entries you would definitely be contributing to them getting points from us.
On one hand, the new system is very exciting, especially when it comes to the end and nobody knows the winner until the very last points.

On the other hand, though, the televotes' presentation is quite boring. It should've been the other way round. Televotes are more important for presentation than the jury votes. It feels like something is missing. I'm sitting on the fence concerning the new voting system.
I have written a report about what would have happened if the 42 spokespersons had announced each country's televoting points, with the 1-10 flashed on screen, and the 12 points announced by the spokesperson, followed by Måns Zelmerlöw and Petra Mede announcing the 26 finalists' jury totals. The following link takes you there:

Alternative Voting Presentation

Please note that I've assumed the televoting points from the 42 spokespersons would have been in the same order as that chosen for their presentation of the jury points. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or know-how to create a graphic simulation of the scoreboard as each country's televoting points would have been added, so I've not been able to see visually how the countries would have moved around, or at what point Russia would have become uncatchable on televoting points alone (if at all). For the jury results part, I analysed the movement of each country around the scoreboard by putting the jury totals into a spreadsheet and sorting the spreadsheet each time.
 

Alaska49

Well-known member
Joined
April 18, 2013
Posts
2,895
thank you for this; i think it really showcases how anticlimactic it would be to reveal televote first and then the jury. australia winning jury when it's obvious they didn't get enough televote points to win would have been boring. plus, seeing entries that scored well in televoting getting demolished by the jury wpuld have a much more negative impact on the audience than the opposite. nobody cared when malta and israel got peanuts from the televote after being high on the jury voting; seeing poland get 7 points after doing so well would have gotten a much bigger reaction.
 

crazymonster

Member
Joined
March 6, 2016
Posts
96
Loved it. I would like to continue it! It's not 2 hours of speaking... and it's very interesting for Top10 by televote :)
 

MyHeartIsYours

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Posts
24,546
Some users have felt it would have been better to have had the spokespersons announce each country's televoting points, and have the presenters call out the jury totals at the end.
Thanks for that, a lot of work well done!

Those results look good to me, after the national spokespersons have finished awarding points, I believe that the scoreboard should reflect the views of the people in the nations of Europe. The jury votes should be collated as one. Sure in this instance it would have been anti-climatic because Australia would have needed masses of points to win, but it was anti-climatic with televotes last anyway because it was fairly obvious that Russia wasn't going to get enough televotes to surpass Ukraine.
 

NemesisNick

Well-known member
Joined
June 2, 2012
Posts
1,288
Location
Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom
Here are the jury, televoting and combined points and placings for Australia, Russia and Ukraine.
Australia: Jury 1st place, 320 points; Televote 4th place, 191 points; Combined 2nd place, 511 points
Russia: Jury 5th place, 130 points; Televote 1st place, 361 points; Combined 3rd place, 491 points
Ukraine: Jury 2nd place, 211 points; Televote 2nd place, 323 points; Combined 1st place, 534 points

Now for some comparisons.

Australia v Russia
Australia finished 190 points ahead of Russia on jury points (320 - 130) - larger difference.
Russia finished 170 points ahead of Australia on televoting points (361 - 191) - smaller difference.
These two almost cancelled each other out. Comparing these two differences, 190 - 170 = 20. Russia's combined total of 491 points was 20 points below Australia's combined total of 511 points.

Australia v Ukraine
Australia finished 109 points ahead of Ukraine on jury points (320 - 211) - smaller difference.
Ukraine finished 132 points ahead of Australia on televoting points (323 - 191) - larger difference.
Comparing these two differences, 132 - 109 = 23. Australia's combined total of 511 points was 23 points below Ukraine's combined total of 534 points.

Russia v Ukraine
Ukraine finished 81 points ahead of Russia on jury points (211 - 130) - larger difference.
Russia finished 38 points ahead of Ukraine on televoting points (361 - 323) - smaller difference.
Comparing these two differences, 81 - 38 = 43. Russia's combined total of 491 points was 43 points below Ukraine's combined total of 534 points.

With these comparisons in mind, it's not difficult to see why Ukraine ended up beating both Russia and Australia, despite finishing second in jury voting and second in televoting. As I said in the conclusion section of my extended analysis report, there are two important things to conclude from this result:
1) Winning one voting system (jury or televoting) and finishing fourth or fifth in the other may not be enough to win outright.
2) If a country finishes second in the jury voting and second in the televoting, it's nonetheless still possible to win outright (especially if the countries which won each system fared badly in the opposite system).
 

John1

Well-known member
Joined
November 1, 2015
Posts
7,052
Location
Brittany
ASSETS AND FLAWS OF THIS NEW VOTING SYSTEM
The voting procedure which has been established under the Swedish ESC's organization, is divided into 2 parts:
Jury voting:
+To my mind, the supervisors of this year's ESC were very clever this time, with calling the spokespersons for the jury's voting only. This makes much more sense, because of the differences between those two sets of votes. At the end of this voting part, let's call it the first part of the whole voting, the results aren't known yet. It enhances both the tension and the suspense, though this wasn't the case back in the previous years, despite 2011's voting, which wasn't really crystal-clear 'till the last 2 voters. Moreover, the procedure lasted too much long before, but this aspect was so entertaining, when a country didn't win by a landslide.
-However, the idea of calling the spokesperson in order to 'only' announce the 12 points instead of the top points isn't a good one. Many people (let's call them 'eurofans') did complain about this new voting procedure, and this idea of "only the twelve points will be announced by those spokespersons *silent cries and evil laugh* MUAHAHAHAHH*. I thought this would be a good idea to diversify this important part of the contest, as people awaits for those points, and are excited to see whether their favourite songs did score many points or not. Despite the fact that I really enjoyed the voting this year, I think they skipped it too fastly, and many people, whose interest about the contest is the voting part, didn't care about the jury points so much. The first 9 points were displayed on the left corner of the screen, and it gave me the impression to be too 'massive'. Indeed, I didn't even see that Czech Republic gathered 41pts in the jury's voting, despite the fact that I loved this song, and this was my favourite one.
Two aspects, which should be revised and improved: Graphics and duration aspect.
Public voting
+The most interesting part of this voting tbh, and that's fine. Why do I call it 'most interesting part'? Simply because of our predictions, which are rather accurate with the public voting than the jury's one. The greatest and main idea of this gigantic revamp is the points which are collected, and not announced in the same way as they are in the jury's voting. I could sum up this aspect with a simple sentence: 'Please please, make my country stays the longest time possible into the scoreboard without any points?'. Yeah, of course. If you want your country to win, it has to be among the lastest being announced. The excitement is rising, rising and rising, whereas your country didn't still get any points from televote. Especially when you're a country, which is called :pl:, thus your enthusiasm will be bigger than before. It appeals much more people to watch the contest, than before.
-Only one single point about which I could complain about this year, is to extend the lenght of this part, which is way more exciting than the other one. In which way could they improve this flaw? Jon Ola Sand should take into account this aspect, and this problem, with displaying only the top 15 countries, whereas the 'bottom 11' would be announced less faster, but still... It would increase the tension by 10000000000%. Moreover, some countries which finished at the middle of the scoreboard would shine brighter than it does in the actual voting system. As an example, :hu:, :lt:, :rs: would've been happier to see that they wouldn't have been called yet.

Overall: The birth of this new voting system can really be considered as a strong improvement from the previous years of the contest, which were as bright as today though. However, this cruely lacked something, which could truly 'revamp' and deeply change the opinion of thousand of thousand of people in Europe, Australia, and in America/Asia (judging that it might be not so famous in Africa).
What are the main effects and consequences of this new voting system for Eurovision? Well... This would be seen as an evolution of the past 60 years of Eurovision. Less old-fashioned, much more modern and fresh.

That's all, folks. xwave

Thank you for having given me the opportunity to share my opinion with you. :) xlove
 

Alaska49

Well-known member
Joined
April 18, 2013
Posts
2,895
i agree with one of the main points of the post that they made the voting go by too fast. maybe they were afraid it would be longer than the traditional voting and hurried up, but it ended up too rushed and honestly petra telling the spokespersons to be quick was kind of annoying lol. i think we could get top 3 points from jury results and the televote results don't need to dispose of the bottom feeders so quickly.
 

RomanFromRussia

Well-known member
Joined
April 24, 2011
Posts
6,993
Location
haus of esk flops
If we speak about the voting system basing on 50/50 principe, it's the most democratic.

1. None of points are going nowhere (In 2013-2015 juries can easily make televoting winner flop by placing it below the top-10, in 2009-2012 1-4 points of juries and televote are going also to nowhere; with this system we can see all the points are going to the countries they should have gone to).

2. It brings real excitement to the voting procedure and it's making the audience stay till the end of the show.

3. We also can see the difference between the jury's faves and televoting faves. (Like Poland, Austria, Malta and Israel) I don't know whether it's good, but anyway...
 

John1

Well-known member
Joined
November 1, 2015
Posts
7,052
Location
Brittany
If we speak about the voting system basing on 50/50 principe, it's the most democratic.

1. None of points are going nowhere (In 2013-2015 juries can easily make televoting winner flop by placing it below the top-10, in 2009-2012 1-4 points of juries and televote are going also to nowhere; with this system we can see all the points are going to the countries they should have gone to).

2. It brings real excitement to the voting procedure and it's making the audience stay till the end of the show.

3. We also can see the difference between the jury's faves and televoting faves. (Like Poland, Austria, Malta and Israel) I don't know whether it's good, but anyway...

Malta's and Israel's results with the jury and the televote are soooo different and far away from each others... :lol:
That's just... incredible to see that the jury are ranking so high some countries, which are killed and burnt by the televote.

With this new voting system, people can see that some results are unfair, and the jury can be ashamed by what they did.

For instance, :at: and :pl: which have been stabbed in the back by the jury, and managed to gather a lot of votes with the televote.
 
Top Bottom