In recent days we have analyzed the lock-step jury votes of Azerbaijan, Belarus and Montenegro, the Armenian mark-down of their top competitors, and the curious case of the Montenegrin vote. At the same time we reached out to the EBU to clarify why they threw out the jury votes from Georgia, but not those from the aforementioned countries.
Sietse Bakker has provideed us with this response to our investigation:
Thank you for your email and analysis. Your articles are interesting, but of course reveal no new information to us.
To invalidate a vote, either jury or televoting, is a very serious measure with a lot of implications, which we don’t take lightly. In the case of Georgia, there was a clear and immediate reason to invalidate votes, based on the recommendation of PwC and our voting partner Digame. In case of the other countries you mentioned – Azerbaijan, Belarus and Montenegro – the jury votes are more spread. It is clear that there is strong unity in their rankings, we saw that as well, but they were not indisputably invalid. That’s why PwC, Digame and the EBU decided to consider the result valid.
Regarding your analysis of the Armenian vote, these results leave a lot of room for speculation, but it is not a result that is indisputably invalid either. I would suggest you ask AMPTV and the jury members to give an explanation.
There are a lot of pros and cons for any voting system, whether it is 50/50, full televoting, full jury, a different mix, a different setup, etc. The perfect system does not exist. But every year, we can do more to make it more perfect.
Event Supervisor Eurovision Song Contest
What do you think? Do you agree that the results are not indisputably invalid?
You can review our recent jury voting stories below.
- Did Armenia’s jurors plot to mark down the favourites?
- Exposed: Suspicious jury results in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Montenegro
- The Curious Case of the Montenegrin vote
Photo: junioreurovision.tv (EBU)