Contact us

Results Of The New Voting System from 2009-2015 (2013 excluded)

Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
So since I've read that the EBU Reference Group was considering implementing the new voting system since 2012. I've decided to see what would happen if there would be any changes to qualifications and final placings from 2009-2015 (2013 exculded) with the 2016 voting system. And I found some interesting results:

2015
Semi-Finals
eY1QzL6.png

:mt: would have qualified over :az: and we would have had 2 Warriors in the final.

Finals
y4TomtO.png

What's interesting here is that :it: would have been the runner-up instead of Russia. Also, :al: would have gotten 11th instead of 17th and :at: and :de: would have placed 23rd and 25th respectfully and would have gotten points! Actually, :de: would have done slightly better last year than this year. In the 2016 system, all the automatic qualifiers (except :it:) would be in the bottom 5 with :es: plummeting down 3 places to 24th, doing worse than :at:. Poor Spain :(

2014
Semi-Finals
HqxEcQp.png

:pt: would have qualified over :sm: (poor Valentina!), but :al: would be the one just missing out.

Finals
kpdhJyH.png

:mt: would have risen 10 places from 23rd to 13th, :az: would have gone up 8 places from 22nd to 14th, and :pl: would have risen 6 places from 14th to 8th under the new system. :dk: and :es: would be the biggest losers as they would both drop 6 places from 9th and 10th to 15th and 16th, respectfully. Also, the United Kingdom would go down 5 places from 17th to 22nd. Poor Molly, she can't catch a break! What is surprising are the great disparities between the allocation of points between the televoters and the jury with :az: having an 82 pt difference (26 vs. 108) :mt: having a 102 pt. difference (17 vs. 119) and :pl: having a 139 pt difference (162 vs. 23) This final was the one that had the greatest rank reshuffling as the televoters and jury did not really agree on most songs.

2012
Semi-Finals
Ip0XT4d.png

What surprised me was that :hr: would have qualified instead of :bg: and :no: under the new system. I thought it would be :bg: but they actually went down in rank.

Finals
6TwIZNe.png

Not much in variation here as the new voting system is somewhat similar to the 2009-2012 voting system. Although an interesting note is that :se: would have done slightly better in 2015 than in 2012 in terms of how many points earned. Also, the margin of points between 1st and 2nd increases from 113 to 213.

2011
Semi-Finals
LggPb6q.png

:be: would have qualified over :md:. However, they were only 1 point apart with their original scores so I'm not surprised.

Finals
22u79k3.png

:uk: would have gotten a 2nd top 10 finish at 8th place (instead of 11th, with help from the televoters) and :at: would have reached 15th instead of 18th. :lt: would have been placed 22nd. Again, a lot of rank reshuffling due to lack of agreement between the jury and televoters with big discrepancies in point allocation between the two in 10 countries.

2010
Semi-Finals
9mJs3jm.png

:mt: or :fi: would have qualified over :md: in Semi-final 1, although it is not clear which of the two tied would have qualified as the number of countries is increased under the new system. Although, when I looked at the original scores, more countries voted for :mt: so I gave it to them. In Semi-Final 2, :se: would have switched places with :ie: which surprised me as I thought it would have been Cyprus. However, seeing that it was close between :cy:,:ie: and :se:, I can see some sort of reshuffling happening.

Finals
SL5Z4K4.png

A big surprise comes in the form of :ge: jumping 4 places to 5th! Also, :ro: would have been runner up instead of :tr:. :be: would have the biggest drop from 6th to 9th.

2009 Final
cmCqVVj.png

As only the finals have split results, I'll just use them. :no: would still have the highest point count in Eurovision history with 690 points (and be the closest to 700) if the 2016 voting system began here. Not many changes here but Malta would have went up 3 places to 19th place. Norway's margin of victory would increase from 169 to 257 points. Also, the UK would finish 4th instead of 5th.

So in conclusion, yes I am a Eurovision geek that has a lot of time in my hands! :lol: Anyway, it does show that the 2013-2015 voting system was very flawed since it was implemented. I noticed when it comes to the EBU, they would like to try new voting systems for 3 contests like the Dice System from 1964-1966 and the live voter system from 1971-1973. It was prevalent that the 2013-2015 voting system heavily favored the juries and created the problem of point cancellation. With this new system, it is much more balanced between televoters and the juries. However, it is easier for one side to help a country out like :pl: this year with the televoters (which I think is the most polarized result since the implementation of the 50/50 system) and with :mt: with the Juries. It defiantly does spice things up and while everyone is at a uproar that neither :ru: nor :au: won, they did cancel each other out in the voting. :ua: was the only one within the top 5 that was both agreed by the televoters and the jury but being the winner of neither. In a 50/50 system, it was bound to happen! It's just that it's more obvious this time around than in the 2009-2012 system where the scores were combined.

So I'm liking this new system, and I think there's a pretty good chance it is going to stay for a while. Although on a side note, I wish the EBU would release the raw data for 2013...mostly to see if Valentina would have qualified.
 

tuorem

Well-known member
Joined
January 17, 2012
Posts
9,131
Location
GN-z11
It defiantly does spice things up and while everyone is at a uproar that neither :ru: nor :au: won, they did cancel each other out in the voting. :ua: was the only one within the top 5 that was both agreed by the televoters and the jury but being the winner of neither. In a 50/50 system, it was bound to happen! It's just that it's more obvious this time around than in the 2009-2012 system where the scores were combined.

I agree! I don't know why so many people cried foul regarding Ukraine's victory due to them not being 1st in any of the rankings. It was indeed bound to happen one day. Personally, I always believed the contrary was more unlikely, I mean out of 26 songs, what are the odds that an act be considered the best by both juries and televoters when there are usually quite a lot of disagreements between them?

So I'm liking this new system, and I think there's a pretty good chance it is going to stay for a while. Although on a side note, I wish the EBU would release the raw data for 2013...mostly to see if Valentina would have qualified.

With the pro-jury system and the impenetrable results revealed by the EBU back in 2013, I genuinely think Denmark didn't really win fair and square (at least, it wasn't the true 1st pointer of televoters, otherwise we would have been given clear rankings and points).
 

Alaska49

Well-known member
Joined
April 18, 2013
Posts
2,890
i think they just thought people would buy their "just showing the points doesn't give you the full picture" story and not only they didn't but also there was that entire vote-buying controversy with azerbaijan so they had to force their hand and start showing full results

i do wonder if they'll ever be allowed to show full jury and televote rankings for 2013 (and also the previous years other than 2009 final) because i want to know if there are more differences than the averages suggest and to show once and for all why ireland was last (answer: albania had no televote and their characteristically trollish jury were responsible for the 6 points to spain, who would be last otherwise)

also, yeah, people who complain about jamala being 2nd televote/2nd jury fail to realize that, in 100% random results, the winner could be something outrageous like 8th televote/10th jury, just try it out in that escnation simulator lol
 

VikingTiger

Well-known member
Joined
February 24, 2010
Posts
3,194
Location
Oslo, Norway
So I'm liking this new system, and I think there's a pretty good chance it is going to stay for a while. Although on a side note, I wish the EBU would release the raw data for 2013...mostly to see if Valentina would have qualified.

Thank you for a very thorough analysis!! And I completely agree with you. This system is better than the one that was previously used. I think it's the best system up to date. Neither the jury nor the televoters can completely "kill" an antry. It shows clearly in yours results 2014. I am expecting the EBU to stick with this system at least for some years.
 
Joined
June 7, 2012
Posts
147
Knowing the EBU I doubt they would ever reveal the absolute results for 2013. However, what I saw when I crunched the numbers is that under the new system, the more the jury and televoters agree on a country (like a country being voted 5th by the televoters and 6th by the jury) the greater chance the country would be ranked along those lines, as long as there are not too many countries with big point differences. So I am pretty confident that :dk: was 1st in both the televoters and jury considering the ranking averages. Although, I am pretty sure under the new system, :ie:, :fr:, and :se: would have done much better as they were both killed by one or the other. For 2013, it's more on how the songs below 5th place would have done under the new system as it's there the most changes happen in rankings as seen with the 2014 and 2015 results.

As for anything before 2009, it's not possible under the new system because the 50/50 system was not implemented until the 2009 final. The televoters (in most countries) decided the finalists in the Semis in 2009 (well except for the unfair wild-card selection), also only televoting was used between 1999-2008 (with some countries using 50/50, and others using juries for some years thrown into the mix) so it's impossible to really see how it would look like.

I can also seeing a song getting 8th tele/10th jury if the results between the two are so screwed up that it was the only one that either one of them agreed upon (I love ESCnation's simulator).

i think they just thought people would buy their "just showing the points doesn't give you the full picture" story and not only they didn't but also there was that entire vote-buying controversy with azerbaijan so they had to force their hand and start showing full results

i do wonder if they'll ever be allowed to show full jury and televote rankings for 2013 (and also the previous years other than 2009 final) because i want to know if there are more differences than the averages suggest and to show once and for all why ireland was last (answer: albania had no televote and their characteristically trollish jury were responsible for the 6 points to spain, who would be last otherwise)

also, yeah, people who complain about jamala being 2nd televote/2nd jury fail to realize that, in 100% random results, the winner could be something outrageous like 8th televote/10th jury, just try it out in that escnation simulator lol
 

Pawhlen

Active member
Joined
June 9, 2013
Posts
2,980
Location
Eksjö
macmillan: In a perfect Dream World, EBU should release all numbers from 2009-2013 but I highly doubt they even have those numbers left in their archive
 
Top Bottom