Contact us

Will there be a change in the voting system?

Brandt

Well-known member
Joined
December 27, 2014
Posts
2,974
Do you think what happened last night will have an influence on a change of voting system the next year, like how 0 points for Germany and Austria did have an impact on it back in 2015?
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
30,390
No, they should keep the current one!

The old one was a disaster and gave the juries even more powers, now it's also far more exciting to follow! The current one exposes the juries for who they are and also respect the public vote more. I don't get how anyone could want to go back to the old system? xshrug

I mean I don't see juries going away any day soon (although I still cross my fingers their powers could be limited to 40% or something but it won't happen), so then the current system is the best compromise.

So what if some countries got 0? Not everyone can get trophies for just showing up, this isn't kindergarten, and it made great TV which in the end EBU cares more about than if it was "fair" to them.
 

anto475

Well-known member
Joined
January 18, 2012
Posts
2,570
Location
Dublin/Galway
I'll agree that it's not gonna be changed, but instead of producing adrenaline by excitement, I feel it produces more adrenaline by stress.
Oh agreed! And that's a good and bad thing as we at home just watch it, get stressed for 15 minutes, and then relax, whereas I'd imagine it takes a serious toll on the artists. I guess that's something the EBU needs to ask itself, do they want to have a good show or are they looking out for the artists?
 

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
4,131
Location
Hannover
I wish they would (at least in the televoting) somehow work with ranking all 25/26 songs tbh. Like not just giving points to the Top 10 idk. That way one could counter heavy neighbor voting. Take :rs: this year for example which only make it to 9th place in the televoting because all it`s buddies (:hr: :mk: :sl:) and the countries with a massive Serbian diaspora (:at: :ch:) gave it top marks. That result does not reflect the fact that they were only 16th when ranking all averages. Same with :md: that was only 18th in that ranking or :al: which had the 22nd best average. E.g. the other way around :no: :se: :mt: and :de: did actually (slightly) better than it looks.
 

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
4,131
Location
Hannover
I´m acutally opposed to ranking all the songs, simply because :12: are one of the things everyone knows when it comes to Eurovision. I´m sorry but "26 points" simply don´t have these kind of "magic" as :12:.
You are not wrong obvs but still it feels like just giving points to the Top 10 creates way too many "losers"
 

ESC94

Well-known member
Joined
September 7, 2019
Posts
2,258
Location
Bavaria, Germany
You are not wrong obvs but still it feels like just giving points to the Top 10 creates way too many "losers"

Well, it´s basically like other competitions or events like the Olympics. Only the first threee get a medal there, the others nothing. Here in this case the points are also some kind of "medals" if you know what I mean.
 

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
4,131
Location
Hannover
Well, it´s basically like other competitions or events like the Olympics. Only the first threee get a medal there, the others nothing. Here in this case the points are also some kind of "medals" if you know what I mean.
Yes sure but it`s not like nobody voted for entries that did bad, ya know? That is exactly the impression one gets though. It`s just not a good representation of what really went down and might make people think "oh my votes don`t count anyway". Maybe it would be better to just give points according to the percentages of actual votes an act got. I really don`t know.
 

Ianp16

Well-known member
Joined
April 15, 2015
Posts
552
Location
Manchester
I think the voting should stay the same, although I miss the old 1-12 points system of the old days. It had to move on though and I think this is the best overall compromise, despite its faults. I personally thought the four 0 points in a row was one of the highlights of the night and was really dramatic. It was shocking but good TV.
 

Maia

Member
Joined
March 8, 2019
Posts
64
I wish they would (at least in the televoting) somehow work with ranking all 25/26 songs tbh. Like not just giving points to the Top 10 idk. That way one could counter heavy neighbor voting. Take :rs: this year for example which only make it to 9th place in the televoting because all it`s buddies (:hr: :mk: :sl:) and the countries with a massive Serbian diaspora (:at: :ch:) gave it top marks. That result does not reflect the fact that they were only 16th when ranking all averages. Same with :md: that was only 18th in that ranking or :al: which had the 22nd best average. E.g. the other way around :no: :se: :mt: and :de: did actually (slightly) better than it looks.
Absolutely agree - would love to see this. The current top 10 system was fine during the days when there were like 15 countries in the final, but the contest has evolved since then.

Yes, I get it. :12: points is iconic. 0 points gives us great memes. But the current system just doesn't reflect how each country *actually* performs. It's very 'tip of the iceberg', which makes the results seem far more exaggerated than in reality (and more predictable). Imagine how much more exciting the results could be if *every* country got points and the margins at the top were so much closer?

Also the current system plays far more into the narrative that the contest is 'all political', especially when on the surface it looks like certain countries are getting 'handed' out 0s and not that they were just ranked 17th on average. Not to mention I think it's a shame that a few rogue 12s from a small handful of countries can rocket someone up the scoreboard and overtake a country that, on average, ranked better.

The points wouldn't necessarily have to be 26-1. We could leave a few out and make it something cutesy like 24 points (22, 20, 19... etc) if it catches on better. I just think considering the monumental effort every country puts in, the current system is too off-balance...
 

Ianp16

Well-known member
Joined
April 15, 2015
Posts
552
Location
Manchester
Absolutely agree - would love to see this. The current top 10 system was fine during the days when there were like 15 countries in the final, but the contest has evolved since then.

Yes, I get it. :12: points is iconic. 0 points gives us great memes. But the current system just doesn't reflect how each country *actually* performs. It's very 'tip of the iceberg', which makes the results seem far more exaggerated than in reality (and more predictable). Imagine how much more exciting the results could be if *every* country got points and the margins at the top were so much closer?

Also the current system plays far more into the narrative that the contest is 'all political', especially when on the surface it looks like certain countries are getting 'handed' out 0s and not that they were just ranked 17th on average. Not to mention I think it's a shame that a few rogue 12s from a small handful of countries can rocket someone up the scoreboard and overtake a country that, on average, ranked better.

The points wouldn't necessarily have to be 26-1. We could leave a few out and make it something cutesy like 24 points (22, 20, 19... etc) if it catches on better. I just think considering the monumental effort every country puts in, the current system is too off-balance...

You make a very very good point here. It would take a bit of getting used to but this would be a lot fairer, more exciting, and generate closer results (which is the highlight of the whole thing anyway).
 
Last edited:

Loindici

Well-known member
Joined
June 5, 2019
Posts
2,485
Location
Samanta's Blood Moon
I mean I don't see juries going away any day soon (although I still cross my fingers their powers could be limited to 40% or something but it won't happen), so then the current system is the best compromise.

The thing is, the transparency of the jury system still needs to be questioned, or the composition of the juries itself. Year by year it seems as if the juries were getting less transparent and somehow getting more packed with Eurovision alumni or NF alumni. Well, having a connection to the broadcaster makes it easier to organize them, perhaps?

And I find it lazy that the official Eurovision website didn't list the occupations of the juries. If it's not an alumni I wouldn't know what name XX does in the music industry or professional field and we have to search the profession of 150 names by hand.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
30,390
The thing is, the transparency of the jury system still needs to be questioned, or the composition of the juries itself. Year by year it seems as if the juries were getting less transparent and somehow getting more packed with Eurovision alumni or NF alumni. Well, having a connection to the broadcaster makes it easier to organize them, perhaps?

And I find it lazy that the official Eurovision website didn't list the occupations of the juries. If it's not an alumni I wouldn't know what name XX does in the music industry or professional field and we have to search the profession of 150 names by hand.

Completely agree, and I don't get why the juries should be alumni anyways, they are not necessary the best "experts" xshrug Some of these people are very odd choices, like in the Swedish jury we had one guy that was an MF flop act with no career? Like why? xshrug

It should be industry people and people who gets stuff, radio programmers etc., DJ's, producers, A&R folks... I dunno... but I must say though, it needs to also be people who respect the contest and the concept, which I feel like sometimes people who never took part look down at it so from that perspective I can get why they're "alumni".

I have to say though that I was quite happily surprised by the Swedish jury vote this year, they felt more professional than I expected them to be. I don't agree with all of course, but generally they rewarded more progressive entries higher than I remember they've done in the past, which was really a pleasant surprise so I'd be happy to keep them for the next years :lol:
 

dogmeat

Well-known member
Joined
January 28, 2010
Posts
5,802
I'm not a fan of juries to begin with, but I have to admit that current votimng system creates the most suspense and the best overall show. For that reason alone, I accept that they're gonna stay for good.

That said, their voting must be fixed. Let's not pretend that opinions of random 5 people are sone sort of objective criteria of quality of music. They are people with their own tastes and biases, just like everybody else. What bothers me is how jury voting tends to punish alternative entries and favors "safe" pop songs. I believe variety is very important in ESC - it attracts wider audience by ensuring everyone can find songs they like. I don't think juries are malicious and actively sabotaging the contest, but there has to be a systemic problem with their voting system. I'll post my analysis of jury voting later in this thread and try to work out possible solutions.
 

GermanBango

Well-known member
Joined
April 13, 2012
Posts
4,131
Location
Hannover
Why juries are (still) needed:
Top marks in the televoting that can be (more or less) directly linked to neighborhood/voting blocs/diaspora or shady reasons..
- :it: giving 10 points to :al:
- :ch: giving 7 points to :al: , 8 to :pt: and 12 to :rs:
- :is: giving 10 points to :se: and 12 to :fi:
- :fi: giving 12 points to :is:
- :lt: giving 12 points to :ua:
- :gr: giving 12 points to :cy: and 8 to :al:
- :pt: giving 8 points to :md:
- :md: giving 12 points to :ru: and 10 to :ua:
- :se: giving 12 points to :fi: , 10 to :is: and 8 to :no:
- :cy: giving 12 points to :gr: and 7 to :bg:
- :il: giving 12 points to :ua: and 10 to :ru:
- :no: giving 10 points to :is: and 8 points to :se:
- :be: giving 12 points to :fr:
- :az: giving 12 points to :il: and 8 to :ua:
- :al: giving 12 points to :ch: (He is half Albanian) , 8 to :gr: and 7 to :md:
- :sm: giving 12 points to :it:
- :nl: giving 12 points to :fr: and 8 to :gr: (She is like half Dutch)
- :es: giving 12 points to :fr: and 8 to :bg:
- :uk: giving 12 points to :lt:
- :at: giving 12 points to :rs:
- :hr: giving 12 points to :rs:
- :cz: giving 12 points to :md:
- :dk: giving 12 points to :is: , 10 to :se: , 8 to :no: and 7 to :fi:
- :ee: giving 12 points to :fi: and 10 to :lt:
- :ge: giving 10 points to :lt:
- :ie: giving 12 points to :lt:
- :lv: giving 12 points to :lt: and 10 to :ru:
- :mk: giving 12 points to :rs: and 10 to :al:
- :pl: giving 12 points to :ua:
- :ro: giving 12 points to :md:
- :sl: giving 12 points to :rs:

All of these could have been easily predicted ... and that`s just the Final. Now obvs some juries did this or other real shady things as well. Long story short: Both sides have flaws.
 
Last edited:

Juliette

Active member
Joined
March 16, 2011
Posts
255
Location
Loin d'ici
My brother said watching the voting mess everything up has been the best part of the entire contest this year :LOL:
 

tuorem

Well-known member
Joined
January 17, 2012
Posts
9,431
Location
GN-z11
Do you think what happened last night will have an influence on a change of voting system the next year, like how 0 points for Germany and Austria did have an impact on it back in 2015?

The 2013-2015 system was ditched because - due to the weird calculation system the EBU had cooked up at the time - some nations ended up receiving few points (or zero) despite scoring decently in one of the rankings. Not to mention juries could mark down songs when ranking all entries and thus annihilate an act that was number one in the televote. They had way too much power.

The current system is the fairest we have ever had since both juries and televoters are separated and are given the same amount of points. The fact some nations try very hard to miss the mark does not have anything to do with the system imo, those nations have to step it up. Period.

If Germany, Spain and the like got the results they got, it's because they performed poorly on both sides, which is a totally different situation. In my opinion, there is no reason to amend the whole thing just because no one cared enough about their entries, it's bound to happen every once in a while.
 

Kaz

Well-known member
Joined
January 12, 2014
Posts
1,843
I would really love it if juries had to write a comment for each song explaining why they ranked it in that position.
 
Top Bottom