Along with the full split results of the grand final and semi-finals of Eurovision 2016, the EBU has provided a full breakdown of how each juror from each country voted. As part of the rules of the Eurovision Song Contest voting, the jury vote must be fair and independent. But as the details of the 2016 voting become clearer, it seems that one country’s jury in particular may not have followed the rules to the letter. Armenia’s jury vote shows startling consistency amongst all five jurors, across both the grand final and the first semi-final.
Armenia jury votes in grand final
As you can see, the Armenian jury awarded top points to France, followed by Georgia and Malta. On the face of it, these results are not too surprising: France and Malta were both very popular with the juries as a whole, whilst Georgia’s 10 points seems nothing compared to the United Kingdom’s jury awarding them 12 points.
The concern comes from the fact that every single juror ranked France as their #1 and Georgia as #2. Taken further, in each case bar one, the top five of each Armenian juror contained exactly the same five songs: France, Georgia, Malta, Bulgaria and Cyprus (one juror, Hayk Hakobyan, ranked Cyprus 10th and Russia 5th). In the following graphic, these results have been highlighted in colour:
It’s no surprise that the jury also ranked Azerbaijan’s song dead last in 25th. Once again, the jury vote shows consistency in that four out of the five jurors ranked the song 25th. Similarly, of course, Azerbaijan’s jury all marked Armenia last — so there is blame to share here. Perhaps the biggest shock is that jury member Erik Karapetyan placed Azerbaijan 19th in his own ranking.
Armenia jury votes in first semi-final
Once again, the Armenian jury somehow managed to come up with exactly the same first and second place across all five jurors. Other consistencies are similarly highlighted: Moldova and the Czech Republic’s rankings also seem to be particularly alarming.
The EBU has safeguards put in place to ensure that voting is legitimate and conducted in a fair manner. The example of this was that last year, the Montenegrin jury vote was excluded as it was deemed suspect. Though no explanation has been given for why, it was believed this was due to the Montenegrin jury ranking the same songs in fourth and fifth place across the board.
However, these same safeguards deemed Armenia’s vote to be wholly legitimate. It’s important to state that there are several other examples where national juries may have behaved in a manner against the rules, throughout the 2016 contest. These too were all deemed to be valid jury results. After the much publicised issues with the Russian jury, these results do not seem to do anything but add further fuel to the fire against the juries.
What are your thoughts on the Armenian jury vote? Should the guidelines for a fair jury vote be made clearer? Let us know here on wiwibloggs or through our Twitter.