Prior to 2003, only the countries competing in the grand final were allowed to vote. At Eurovision 2013, all 26 finalists plus the 13 countries eliminated in the semi-finals were allowed to.
Below you can see what would have had happened if the 2003 system had been applied in Malmö. Differences between the actual and alternative voting results are indicated in brackets. These results are based on the actual points awarded by the 26 Grand Finalists, so none of the mind-boggling split voting results are included. The current tie-breaker rule is applied to all the countries that need separating as a result.
Alternative Results
1. Denmark – 193 points (No change)
2. Ukraine – 154 points (Up 1 place)
3. Azerbaijan – 145 points (Down 1 place)
4. Norway – 129 points (No change)
5. Malta – 99 points (Up 3 places)
6. Russia – 98 points (Down 1 place)
7. The Netherlands – 87 points (Up 2 places)
8. Greece – 76 points (Down 2 places)
9. Belgium – 56 points (Up 3 places)
10. Romania – 55 points (Up 3 places)
11. Hungary – 48 points (Down 1 place)
12. Georgia – 48 points (Up 3 places)
13. Moldova – 47 points (Down 2 places)
14. Sweden – 46 points (No change)
15. Italy – 46 points (Down 8 places)
16. Iceland – 38 points (Up 1 place)
17. Belarus – 37 points (Down 1 place)
18. Armenia – 32 points (No change)
19. United Kingdom – 20 points (No change)
20. Lithuania – 17 points (Up 2 places)
21. Estonia – 9 points (Down 1 places)
22. Finland – 6 points (Up 2 places)
23. France – 4 points (No change)
24. Ireland – 3 points (Up 2 places)
25. Germany – 3 points (Down 4 places)
26. Spain – 2 points (Down 1 place)
The alterative voting results have resulted in ten countries doing better than their actual result. The biggest winners are Malta, Belgium and Romania, each gaining three places. As a result, all three of them sneak into the top 10. Yes, that includes Romania’s Cezar Ouatu. I’m sure that’s a scary thought for many of you!
The old system sees ten countries doing worse than their actual result. Without the points from the semi-finalists, Italy would have finished well outside the top 10 and dropped eight places to 15th. Ouch, that’s got to hurt!
So after all the results are checked, double checked and verified, the pre-2003 voting method used on the results of 2013 have provided some intriguing outcomes. Emmelie de Forest still holds on to the top spot. We would still be booking our hotels and flights to Copenhagen. The alternative results have revealed a new runner up, plus a new owner of the dreaded wooden spoon. It has also resulted in several major changes to the top 10.
Anthony Ko contributed this report from the U.K. Follow him on Twitter at @bjorneo. You can also keep up-to-date with the latest Eurovision news and gossip by liking our Facebook page.
Photo: Eurovision.tv (EBU)
For me the most interesting aspect out of all these alternative analysis is that Denmark remains the worthy deserving winner in all of them: and that is such a relief. Not long ago an Ukranian silver-dressed comedian drag queen almost won … and yet it’s the thought that a operatic-drakula-like singer from Romenia achieving top 10 that scares you? A result like the one Italy achieved in this “2003-system” would make RAI quit Eurovision again: if there is one thing Italy is not into when it comes to Eurovision, are all the novelty acts and joke entries that literally all… Read more »
I think I like these standings much more. Italy, Greece, Spain, and Azerbaijan didn’t deserve to finish as high as they did and Finland, Ireland, Belgium, and Ukraine didn’t deserve to finish as low as they did. However, I don’t like how Romania finished much higher this way and how the Netherlands finished lower this way.
Malta better than Netherlands? unforgivable!
An interesting statistical analysis but as the only real place to be is FIRST, being three places up or down below that is neither here nor there…
all big 5 suffers with this system… even italy. :O