Earlier this morning the EBU and SVT announced that they are changing the Eurovision voting system so that the winner of Eurovision is not known until the very last minute. That sounds promising and we’ve spent the morning crunching the numbers to see if it would actually make for a more dramatic ending. Based on past instances, that might not always be the case. Given that Alexandery Rybak, Loreen, Emmelie de Forest and Conchita Wurst all won the jury vote and televote, it’s clear the system wouldn’t have affected many previous results. But would it have made the last portion of the show any better? We’ve taken a look at a couple examples for y’all to make up your mind:
The Good: 2011 results under the 2016 voting system
So, let’s take a (relatively) positive example to start: Eurovision 2011. With all the jury votes in, we’d have the top five looking like this:
- Italy – 251 points
- Azerbaijan – 182 points
- Denmark – 168 points
- Slovenia – 160 points
- Austria – 145 points
Italy’s 69 point lead at this point would look healthy, but not insurmountable – even Austria, though 106 points behind, would have been in with a shot. Not only that, but after the jury votes were in, you’d have the likes of Sweden (9th place), pre-contest favourite France (11th place) and even the UK (22nd place) down the order. It would take a landslide for them to win, but any of them would surely be popular enough with the televote to do so.
Once the televotes started to come in, there’d be some real shocks of course. Austria – in the top five – would finish 24th with the public. Then, Slovenia and Denmark until finally Italy only receives 99 points in 11th place. With a grand total of “just” 350 points, a lead of 168 points and nearly 1600 points left to share between 10 countries, it would suddenly become a question of if any of the other countries could have got a landslide win. After a certain point, it would also become obvious that only Azerbaijan could, in theory, be victorious. The mathematical certainty of Azerbaijan winning wouldn’t come until Greece received 176 points in 3rd place. Certainly tense towards the end and very reminiscent of Ace being dethroned by Sanna right at the death of Melodifestivalen 2014.
The Bad: 2012 results under the 2016 voting system
So, SVT and the EBU have been very keen to point out the lack of drama in the Eurovision 2012 result. “We’ve had 25 and 30 minutes to go…when everyone knew that Loreen had already won“. Well yes, that was true. Unfortunately, the new system would have had exactly the same result. Again, let’s look at the top 5 after the jury votes.
- Sweden – 296 points
- Serbia – 173 points
- Albania – 157 points
- Italy – 157 points
- Spain – 154 points
With a 123 point lead, would anyone have really thought Loreen would lose at this point (even after seeing Italy’s lead evaporate in 2011)? With a hugely televote friendly song and her only other “real” competition, Russia, being 200 points behind her, it would have been an absolute foregone conclusion. Admittedly, it would not have been until the final two votes that Loreen would have been “guaranteed” victory. Certainly it would have been a bit more drama, but one that would feel entirely artificial (unless Europe had truly lost their minds that night in Baku).
Much the same would have likely happened in 2015 as well. Måns Zelmerlow’s victory would be a mostly foregone conclusion — even with Måns finishing third in the televote, he could not be caught by either Russia or Italy thanks to his jury lead. With cases like this, it might be difficult for the EBU to keep voters interested. Too many obvious results post-jury would surely lead to the public doubting if their vote really mattered.
Would you have liked to see the results of previous contests with the new voting system in place? Let us know in the comments section below.
About the jury voting.
Juries are there to have more thorough opinions about the songs and go beyond who/what ppl FEEL should do well. They have experience in music that the average person would pick up on. If they did, Italy or Russia would’ve won and Georgia and Latvia would’ve done poorly.
They exist (other than to cut down bloc voting which isn’t 100%) so if Rodolfo Chickilaquatras or Silvia Knights or Verdka Sedushkas or Dustin The Turkeys wanna compete, they better bring quality with their camp.
If they bring Cheese it better be GOUDA!
“Wouldn’t this just bring back bloc voting?”
It never left, but yes, it would make it somewhat more effective. There’s no perfect scoring system.
Keep in mind that it will reduce ANTI-block voting. Azerbaijan won’t be able to rank Armenia 26th any more (and vice-versa).
This is a change for the better.
Wouldn’t this just bring back bloc voting?
WTF
Eurovision is dead because of experts like you!
In 2014, Slovenia as a borderline-qualifier would have qualified with the new system but Macedonia would have qualified instead because their “good” jury result would not be eliminated by the bad televoting result, right?
I feel as if it would feel more representative of the country if the televoting points were announced by the spokespersons.
Criticca: Preach it!!!
A bit off-topic but IMO 2011 was by far the worst winner of this millennial. Which is why 2012 marked a revolutionary year for ESC fans that WE choose the winner. Not the juries or suspicious televoters. This os why the recent winners after 2011 are all liked by ppl
@MGR: Garbage like “Bada Nakna” should have absolutely no business coming anywhere near winning, not even in a weaker year like this one… That is the only thing that is obvious and clear here…
“My question is, will this new system be used in the semifinals as well?”
Yes. Of course they won’t announce the scores on the broadcast, but the new scoring system will be used.
I will never accept odds for Melodifestivalen! They hate the best entry!
Can everyone please accept it and hope for the best? No need to beat a dead horse. What’s done is done.
Isa is bad, Ace Wilder is bad, Wiktoria is bad, Molly Sanden will be bad, Robin Bengtsson is average, David Lindgren is average. Please Sweden send Samir & Viktor! You will be favorite against 42 weak and boring craps! It’s so obvious and clear!
I am 100% sure Samir & Viktor will be strong winners of televoting in Sweden! Only jury can destroy them!
Now the most important thing is that “Bada Nakna” is great hit in Sweden and number 1 in charts! Eurovision Song Contest is for hits and that’s why Samir & Viktor must be winners in Sweden!
New rules applied for semifinals:
2010: Finland would have qualified instead of Epic Moldova and Sweden instead of Ireland
2011: Belgium would qualify, the loser would again be Moldova
2012: Croatia would qualify, Norway would not qualify
2013: Austria & Bulgaria would qualify, Estonia and Iceland would not
2014: Portugal would qualify, San Marino would not
2015: Malta would qualify, Azerbaijan would not
Now the most important thing that “Bada Nakna” is great hit in Sweden and number 1 in charts! Eurovision Song Contest is for hits and that’s why Samir & Viktor must be winners in Sweden!
My question is, will this new system be used in the semifinals as well?
The reality is that this format change will change very little. for example sweden and måns would have won in 2015 anyway .. but with a larger margin than in with the current 50/50 system. I think it will increase the suspense for sure.
Final results 2014 FINAL 2014 Country Jury Televoting TOTAL 1 1 Austria 224 311 535 2 2 Netherlands 200 222 422 3 3 Sweden 201 190 391 4 4 Armenia 125 193 318 5 5 Hungary 138 98 236 6 7 Russia 70 132 202 7 6 Ukraine 78 112 190 8 14 Poland 23 162 185 9 12 Romania 51 103 154 10 11 Finland 114 39 153 11 8 Norway 102 39 141 12 13 Switzerland 27 114 141 13 23 Malta 119 17 136 14 22 Azerbaijan 108 26 134 15 9 Denmark 85 43 128 16… Read more »
@Adam
Thanks for your comments.
Expertise speaks for itself. So does ignorance.
@mawnck literally no one cares about your supposed music expertise. The fact that you feel the need to prove your “dominance” on the internet over simple music fans who have equally valid opinions on music taste shows your pathetic insecurities. Grow up.
By the way whatever musical expertise you have, I have a lot more of. How do you know that? Because I’m saying this over the internet of course.
At least we all know that jury results always are more controversial and people will see these results. In televoting people can’t vote against someone, but jury always vote for someone and against someone. Now people will know what jury is. Maybe this will be better for jury’s activity in future.
ruth lorenzo for spain 2014 ended up 17th televoting and 11th jury voting… what would that make her with this system? Last?
On the other hand, if there were no jury, 8th or 9th in televoting suffice to be in top 10. So the best option now is elimination of jury. If televoting is 60% fair and jury is 40% fair, still 60% is better than 60%+40%:2=50%.
I think all countries from top 6 in televoting should be always in top 10. UK in 2011 and Poland in 2014 are the best examples.
OK, I can accept these changes. Generally favorites are most important. Every favorite should have place in top 10.
“He’s one of those people who believes his musical opinion and taste is better and more valid than everyone else’s.”
My musical TRAINING and KNOWLEDGE is more valid than the rantings of fanboys who can’t detect off-key singing and have never picked up a musical instrument in their lives. That’s reality. Sorry if it hurts your feels. There are a LOT of valid opinions on this site, all worthy of respect … but it doesn’t necessarily mean yours is one of them.
Could this change make the winner seem less legitimate? For example, I know a lot of people weren’t happy with Azerbaijan winning in 2011, but wouldn’t it have been all the more annoying had they never once looked like taking the lead throughout the jury voting, and only shockingly overturning that lead at the last moment? Great TV yes, but it might just make people question whether it was a fair result, because they had been trailing all night. And of course if the actual winner only comes 2nd, 3rd or worse in the televote, doesn’t that also put a… Read more »
One injustice is clearly saved. It is about starting position. Both viewers and jury will vote more for entries later situated. Starting position in final ruined results of Israel and Estonia and with this new system their results would be even more destroyed.
On the note of the voided televote / jury results, it’s not really possible for us to predict what the “averaged votes” would be for previous years. So, yes, there would be a slight difference but it’s unlikely they’d change *too* much.
@Freyah – I’d ignore mawnck. He’s one of those people who believes his musical opinion and taste is better and more valid than everyone else’s. Seriously, you’re lucky you only have to see his opinions on here.
tbh the uk gain from this. 2009 and 2011 when they tried hard both would be in top 5 with this system however its unfair to places with less diaspora, wouldnt be surprised if turkey make a return.
@mawnck
I didn’t even like Il Volo, I was just pointing a fact out. If anyone is being whiny its you, calm down.
@dutchie: that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, UK, maybe even Bulgaria, Ireland or Israel will be pretty much screwed. Until now, they could hope to come at least 12th or so in the televote and to have a good jury vote (if deserved, of course). But now… a good jury vote will count much less if in some (too many) countries neighbours and friends always come first in televote. I don’t even blame the people vo vote for their country of origin or their neighbours. But the EBU should not reinforce this bias even… Read more »
Portugal who qualified with 4th place for the finals in 2010 would have crashed out as only 15th from their semifinal with the new rules.
Finland and Malta would have qualified instead of them and Moldova. (no epic sax guy in the finals)
I was initially quite positive about this, until I realized that this system means my own country Holland will very likely be screwed in the semis. Diaspora voting becomes a more important factor again, as countries like Armenia will certainly get points even if the juries don’t rate them. When they’re slightly below 10th place after the jury votes, that will help them get to the final.
Reminder to Wiwibloggs … The results you calculated above aren’t strictly accurate, because of the “substitute points” thing (which you STILL haven’t mentioned in any of your articles). San Marino’s televote points under the 2016 standard, for instance, can’t be determined by the past data. “I certainly agree if this system had been in place last year, the outrage over Il Volo losing to Mans while winning the Televote would have been greater.” Uh, nope. That’s purely a fanboy thing. The normals (and for that matter, most of the rest of us fans) DO NOT CARE about your precious Il… Read more »
So the famous “…and our 12 points go to…” will only be for jury results? :/ that doesn’t seem right, the spokespeople always reminded me as “voice of the people” and the country, how it voted. now it will be only the jury results and neither final, since the 12 points from the country are never actually presented. I think they should have done it the other way round: spokespeople saying the televotes and at the end the juries. Also, I think it’s a bad idea to not combine the votes directly anymore. This way, we will have many countries… Read more »
wiwibloggs forgot to mention that the people who don’t qualify from the final will perform at a new show called andra chansen which means second chance in swedish where they will perform forna second chance to be in the final
MGR – This isn’t some great revolution or insurgence. It’s the Eurovision voting format. >.>
I won’t have a fully formed opinion until I see it itself in May, though I do have my trepidations about ESC 2016 being used as a testing ground for such a system. It might work quite well for Melodifestivalen, but there’s no real knowing how it’ll be translated to a much more complicated and international competition, as compared to a national final… To be fair to the sceptics, there is a huge difference in the scope and scale of the voting. There are a few concerns that I’ve seen other people raise so far with regards to this change… Read more »
“Hello Albania, we see your jury points already on the screen, now we are adding the points from 1 to 8 of the televoting, would you please proceed by adding us up your Top 3 from the televote?”
Too many beautiful words, too little real work. We have to move forward much harder and faster. We can not all the time stand, because we will die due to lack of activity.
The 2015 results under the 2016 voting rules are so different!!!!
Sweden 632 Georgia 84
Italy 537 Montenegro 78
Russia 520 Lithuania 75
Belgium 381 Cyprus 71
Australia 356 Slovenia 63
Latvia 349 Greece 53
Norway 206 Hungary 50
Estonia 197 Poland 49
Israel 181 Austria 40
Serbia 98 Spain 33
Albania 97 Germany 29
Romania 90 France 28
Armenia 90 UK 19
Azerbaijan 88
People in the world are increasingly demanding and you have to start really meet their expectations.
Fun fact: Sweden would have qualified that time in 2010 under this voting system instead of Ireland.
You should not always think only of small adjustments. Sometimes you have to make the revolution.
It’s the Melodiefestivalen system – if your confused the new system literally works the exact same way as the final at Melfest.