Another year, another rule change! At this rate, it feels like not a contest goes past without a fresh rule revision. The newest amendment concerns the manner in which the jury score is calculated. But it’s slightly complicated, so sit back and warm up your brains.
Juries at modern Eurovision
First, some background.
Eurovision juries have always been a divisive subject within the fan community. But regardless of whether you love to hate them or hate to love them, they make up half of the total vote. In other words: they’re important!
When the juries were re-introduced during the 2008 semi-final, they only had the power to send a tenth “wildcard” song to the semi-final, while the other nine qualifiers were chosen by the public.
One year later, when the contest headed to Moscow, half of the grand final result was determined by juries.
Since then, the way in which the jury score is calculated has undergone a number of changes. Most notably, before 2013, every juror only ranked their individual top ten favourite acts. However, from Malmö onwards, juries ranked all participating songs — i.e. from their favourite to least favourite. Of course, in 2016 the voting system underwent yet another revamp. But that impacted more on the power of the televote rather than how juries operated.
The big disadvantage with the post-2013 ranking is that one juror could potentially drag a country’s result down or lift it up. For instance, Juror X might really, really dislike an entry and rank it 26th out of 26 in the final. However, all of his colleagues might adore it and rank it highly. But thanks to Juror X, that entry could potentially get no points at all from the panel. Today’s new rule change seeks to address this problem.
The power of an extreme individual opinion reduced
Now for the hard part.
Previously, the jury point were calculated by combining each juror’s rankings. No extra weight was given to songs that scored highly. Under the new system, each ranking will have a predetermined value.
The EBU’s so-called “linear weight model” is out and the “exponential weight model” is in.
The graph below shows the value of each rank, i.e. how much each juror’s 1st place, 2nd place, etc is worth when calculating the overall jury score from a country.
The difficult math explained
In practice, this means that when a juror ranks a song first, the song will get twelve points from that juror.
The juror’s second place will receive a little less than twelve points. This process continues until the 26th ranked song, which receives one point from that juror.
To calculate the points of a jury, the ten entries with the highest sum of points will be awarded a country’s 1 to 8, 10 and 12 points. But what’s the revolutionary change exactly?
Instead of a linear model, the songs will be evaluated in an exponential model (*cries in maths*).
This means that the predetermined value of the first ranked, the second ranked and the third ranked song will generally be higher than the values of the fourth ranked song and below. Next to that the first ten songs will also have a generally higher value than the eleventh song and below. This is the reason why the graph above looks like a nice ski slope and not a straight line.
The advantages of the new system
One of the biggest advantage of this new system is that the system will make it less likely that one juror influences the overall ranking of the jury too much. This is because the difference between the value of 12 and 1 is smaller than the difference between a first rank and a 26th rank.
Next to that, the EBU wants to achieve a more coherent top 10 feel by spreading the values from 12, 10, 8 towards 1 instead of ranking the songs from first until twenty-sixth place.
The EBU has also confirmed that the jury members for this year’s contest will be announced on Monday April 30 at noon CEST. The 215 music professionals from 43 countries will make up 50% of the points, while the televoters will decide the other half.
If you’re eager to learn more about how exactly the new system will work in practice, the ESC Insight team has created a number of simulations based on the available jury scores from previous contests.
Are you happy with the rule change? Let us know in the comments below.
I would have proposed a classic method, used from old times in some sports and not only and I think it would have been waaay much easier: for each song, cancel the best and the worst result between the 5 jurors. Then only 3 scores would have count from a country for each entry.
If anyone would like the equation, I believe it’s y= 12(.902)^x-1.
This is for the final voting of qualifiers.
This means the individual jury votes will be more similar to the Eurovision format of 12, 10, 8, 7, (…), 1, 0 , 0 , 0, (…) points. It’s nice to see a change to try to make the results more fair. But this won’t help. Basically, if a song is ranked 11th 11th 11th 11th 11th, it will have a worse score than a song ranked 1st 25th 25th 25th 25th… This new system will damaged the songs from the middle of the scoretable. And help the bottom and top songs. It’s not easy to make the votes fair.… Read more »
What you’re saying is not even true. Actually a song rated 5x11th will get pretty much the same result as a song rated 1st and 4x25th. Because no one gets 0 from an individual jury member in this system. It’s not a full return to the old system where every jury member awarded points to his top ten only. But even if it was I would support that, because who actually wants songs rated “11th 11th 11th 11th 11th” to do well? It’s not the point of the contest to find the most average song we can all agree on,… Read more »
You should read my post again. I never said an individual jury will give 0 points to anyone. What i said is: the new system is more similar to that format. The example i gave was to exemplify how a single judge can temper with the results more easily than before. If 4 juries don’t like the song, it probably is a bad song. The point of the 50% jury is to allow the songs that don’t have points in televote to have a fairer result. Not to amplify political / migrational /blocks results etc… I don’t believe this system… Read more »
If that’s what you meant then I don’t understand why you think a song rated 11th five times will do so much worse than before. I just did the math and it will infact still do better than a song rated 1st, 25th, 25th, 25th, 25th. And yes, if a song is ranked last by four jury members it’s probably not that good, but a song that didn’t manage to enter the top ten of any jury member at all isn’t either. And what you said about the reason for the juries is true, but they can do that without… Read more »
Think it’s good that they try to make changes.
Malin’s comment roughly in English:
“Super sad that it has become like this. I feel sorry for Benjamin, the reactions are really not proportional. He is impulsive and reacts honestly at the moment, and some things were unnecessary.”
– That’s Malin’s opinion, not mine.
Where did she say that?
And that’s not what her comment above means at all!
Stop trolling!
@Denis: Ooo, they’re getting good now these trolls. Posting a comment and then editing it after it was posted. Very clever.
I admit to being defeated on this occasion.
And so, the creature called Purple Mask attained the highest anti-social level of any human being on Earth, sobbing his virgin ass in his dusty basement while doing the only thing he’s good at: trolling and trolling and trolling…
If anyone is interested, the formula to get the weight (W) for each position (P) is:
W = 12 * exp( -0.099396266 * (P – 1))
You deserve an award for this.
Yes Renske!
How did you get -0.099396266
I don’t understand anything, but I’m happy 😀
Everyone says that jury vote will be fairer now, but I feel completely opposite 😀 I mean, it’s much more easy to ‘buy’ one juror so that he would rank a certain song 1st, and now this song would be in higher place in overall jury ranking than it would have been in earlier system.
Actually during the old system that would have been possible. If one juror felt different then that would have been enough to rank it down. But this way no juror gets individual power. This favours the whole jury as such and not individual jurors.
It’s like this: If a song gets two 8, one 6, one 7 and one 2 then that song would do better than a song who gets all 8. That’s how I understood it reading comments..
It would have done better in the earlier system as well. As I understood, the juries will be voting in the old way, then the EBU will do the maths. So they will have this ‘individual power’ as earlier, the only difference is that this power is more powerful to first places than to last. For instance, if you have two songs: one song is ranked 1st/1st/13th/26th/26th and the other song is ranked 13th/13th/13th/13th/13th, under the old system both songs would have had simmilar combined jury result. But now the first song will be placed significantly higher than the second.… Read more »
You would have to buy the entire jury then, not just individual jurors:)
It still favours the whole jury as such because now one low or high point won’t influence the outcome. For divisive entries this is good because they can get much higher. For loved entries though it probably would involve much more work I guess
To reach the same result as in previous years, now you need to buy just a pair of jury members instead of all five as you would have earlier. One high result will influence the outcome very much, just look at the exponential graph
But wait, anything regarding juries getting camped like one renown 2016 leaked video exposed it?
Broadcaster needs to isolate each jury from another one in days of voting. At least to guarantee there was no influence given by ‘camp’ opinion in place, so anything else will be on response of juries out of the venue and of potential forces above them.
Let also recall 2017 when triplet of semi-final leading countries’ juries dropped potential winners out of their top10 . The tweak in calculation not only does nothing to solve this issue but makes any ‘camp’ decision even more influential.
Yes we still need some improvements here and there. I also think the size of the jury should be increased at least to 10 members.
How I wish that there will be someone who will monitor each juries as well to minimize (if not totally prevent) those issues.
how is the composite ‘televote’ created for san marino? there’s still no answer, and it was the reason anja qualified instead of tijana last year! also it’s useless that the spokespersons should read out the juries’ scores since the televote and the people who watch the contest are the ones who should have the voice, who cares about how 5 old people voted
I think the jury members should reveal why they rank certain songs in certain spots. If the reason is for geography or political reasons, then the jury member’s or members’ votes are rendered null to make it more fair. That way, countries are less likely to win just because of political reasons or block voting and it’s the song that wins.
Hmm, the more divisive songs are likely to do better under this – a marmite song could have three jury members love it and two hate it, and the ‘hate’ is less likely to drag it down now. Given the more divisive songs already do better on the televote given that people only vote for their favourites (and can’t down vote their least favourites!), I’m not sure this is a great idea. It would be nice to see a winner that almost everyone is happy with, like with Mans in 2015.
2015 is considered one of the biggest injustices in the history of eurovision, what are you talking about 0.o
Lol, it’s not!
2016 however…
I totally agree and I expect to see the same with Estonia this year.
A little bit off topic – wouldn’t it make more sense if each country presents their televoting points instead of those of juries? It’s kind of weird because the jurors are all in the host country and then their points are “sent back home” and unveiled. It would make more sense if the intense ending part is the juries. But I can see the frustration people might feel from getting the jury points last and the way that affects the outcome.
I agree 100%. Given that jury members SHOULD be impartial, it’s much less interesting for viewers to see jury points announced. For instance, when Malta comes up, people in the UK can say ‘Ooh, I wonder if they’ve given us points’. The relevance of the country that is announcing the results shouldn’t matter, as they’re meant to be impartial (but clearly aren’t at times!!). Therefore putting the jury votes into one big pot makes more sense than doing that with the televotes. As you say though, I’m sure it would frustrate people more to see jury votes change everything at… Read more »
I miss seeing how we as a country gave out points, but yeah I guess it should stay this way. I love that intense ending part
The new method certainly has its pros and cons!
Shame on you Wiwi / Kevin Lee! Go out of your way to protect Sweden / Ingrosso. People have the right to see what kind of artist InGrossSo really is! Hopefully those who had the video will repost in other sites!
Lolz, no one cares!
The full reaction video is up again on a lot of different sites. There are article and various media coverage on the incident. Don’t worry – there will be more people who can see his reaction.
Imagine if Sweden don’t qualify as a result and Swedish hackers try and bring down wiwibloggs!!
Some people already have been trying to bring them down – that’s the whole point of pouncing on this video. These “fans” are disgusting.
can someone explain to me what happened? i missed it
@ai4pres: As I understand it, Sweden’s singer Benjamin Ingrosso agreed for Wiwibloggs to film a 15-minute “reaction video” of him reacting to hearing the other 42 songs in the contest, some of them for the first time. However, Benjamin’s reactions came across as generally rude, and in some cases were inappropriately critical of the other acts. He was particularly critical about FYR Macedonia and San Marino in a childish manner. Following complaints, the original video was taken down from Wiwibloggs. Benjamin has also posted a written apology on Twitter. However, some people will not let this go, and have re-posted… Read more »
Please Whiliam! You ask if we are exited this friday night! I feel 20 years older trying to understand this! Cheers!
Should have read a book, or watched TV.
It does make sense, good call.
However I would much prefer if they abolish the juries altogether. It may have been a good idea in theory 10 years ego when they decided on it, but in practice the juries made the voting biased and encouraged broadcasters to take fewer risks, which brought us to point where so many countries send bland Sweded mid-tempo pop songs.
Except that the reason the juries were brought in to begin with was people said that the televote was “biased” and everyone was only voting for their neighbors, etc.
Which is why I wrote “it may have been a good idea in theory”, meaning that balancing the biases of the televote is a good reason to add juries to the mix. However IMHO it’s clear the juries have not balanced the biases of the televote , but rather exacerbated them, and also added some biases of their own.
Interestingly enough I think broadcasters have become more riskier and creative since having juries. We wouldn’t have songs like those we have now hadn’t it been for juries. There is no way we would have winners such as Jamala and Salvador had it not been for juries
Now that the jury has more power to boost songs they like, expect Bulgaria giving Israel zero. Same applies to those countries that want to win so badly that they bash competitors.
For Bulgaria to not give any jury points to Israel, all Juries will need to put Israel really low so now it’s more likely to catch them in the act if it were to happen.
Well, some countries do rank their biggest competitors lower. Now it became easier to push through those countries which are lesser threat
I hope this helps countries that I support this year. :'(
My head hurts after reading this.
It’s complicated for me but I still got the general sense. Seems fair, all entries will get at least 1 point and it will reduce the chances of a juror draging down an entry.
We’ll see how it goes.
No, all entries won’t get at least 1 point, because each country will award 1-12 jury points as in previous years, only the order (how these points are calculated) are changing. Countries ranked 11-26 in an average jury rank still won’t get any points.
We need the juries. A fair and transparent group of professional people who would judge songs based on their artistic merits. The current jury panel is corrupt and biased. It should be banned.
Proof?
Go on Wikipedia and pick some countries. See how their judges voted.
Some examples:
– Armenia x Azerbaijan voting. Azerbaijan also blanking Cyprus in 2017;
– Controversial cases, such as Russia 2016 (the video case);
– Combining results, and there are many of those;
– Portugal & Bulgaria blanking each other and Italy in 2017;
I’m a mathematician and so I am very happy to see a nonlinear model applied to the jury scores. It really does make sense since with only 5 jurors, outlier scores are very influential.
Lol @ some of you still thinking the juries are ”experts”. Yes, those ”experts” from Azerbaijan and Armenia putting each other last every year, every single member. Those ”experts” voting for their neighbours (for a second I thought we were watching televoting results last year, Greece giving Cyprus 12 points and vice versa, and many other examples). Those ”experts” ranking their competition very low/tactical voting (Bulgaria, Italy and Portugal all did that last year). There was also literally a kid in the Macedonian jury last year, lol (maybe in some other countries too, didn’t bother to check them all). And… Read more »
Lots of the juries are pretty much just random people who happen to know how to sing. That’s it, they’re no ”music experts” that are able to objectively rank all the songs.
Not really. Remember that Danish woman in 2016. lol
I agree the jury system is flawed. Bulgarian and Portuguese juries didn’t award any points to Italy/Bulgaria/Portugal last year, which seems a bit fishy. The Italian jury did give points to both Bulgaria and Portugal though.
I HOPE SPAIN WIN
They will but not this year. 😉
It’s complicated but it really does make sense. I think it’s going to be hard to explain to the general public though – assuming that they decide to do so.
I think the simplest way to describe it to the public is – ‘Previously a single juror could severely dent a country’s chances at points by ranking them 26th as the difference between 11th and 26th place’s points was 15. Now the difference between 11th and 26th place is only 1 point ”
I think this will be biggest for countries who take a risk, like Poland in 2014.
Explain to me pleace, cheers!
Definitely better than the post 2013 jury ranking system, but whether it’s effectively better than the pre 2013 one, we’ll have to wait and see. I personally agree that jury vote should exist, but not in the 50%-50% format we have. And by that I don’t mean reducing its percentage to 40/25/10% like many others suggest, but changing the way it affects the televote ranking entirely. To be more specific, the juries could rank their top 10 (like pre 2013, or with this new model) and if there’s a deviation of, say, 3 or 4 places from the country’s ranking… Read more »
I feel like I got a maths degree just by reading this. Just joking! I’ve never been a numbers person, but I understand it. No doubt that calculating the top 10 by acummulative points (from 12 to 1) and not by the average rank will make the jury vote fairer and realistic. I love this change and makes more sense. Just hope all of the jurors are aware of the change and how it works and won’t end up ruining it. Although, I suppose their will rank the 26 countries from 1st to 26th, so there’s no risk at all.… Read more »
It’s more complicated for sure, but probably a good tweak allowing for more objectivity.
Do you think Romania, Greece, Armenia,Russia And Azerbaijan only want televoting if they could decide? I hate only televoting. Thats why Turkey left. Im happy with this :). Not all countries have 3 million diaspora voters. I know we in Sweden dont.
Well, but noone discriminates against Sweden. Countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Poland, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Greece are often discrimianted by juries. I am not saying it should all be televoting, I actually support the existence of juries as song quality has vastly improved since the introduction of juries, but I am also sick of people complaining diaspora vote- it is like WASP men blaming black women for getting pregnant and deserving a lower wage.
Undoubtedly some of the success these countries got was due to diaspora. That can’t be tossed away or pretend it never happened. Like these countries could send anything knowing they would do well due to massive support. Like how Turkey always got 12 points from Germany.
Noone denies it. But it just balances the massive discrimination we guys are facing. Try to apply even for a tourist visa with a Turkish passport, then we talk.
If jurys would hate the same country every year then its no point to have a contest i think. When it was televoting 100% i understand why Turkey and Azerbaijan loved it. Its more fair now with jurys who can apprecciate a song that maybe need more listens and the people who on the second attempt loves that song:)
When have Juries discriminated Turkey? On Juries alone, Hadise placed 7th in 2009, maNga placed 8th on 2010. With Yuksek Sadakat’s non-qualification in 2011, Juries placed it on 12th while Televote placed it on 10th, but the jury score was higher than televote, 58 points came from Juries while 54 came from the Televote. Lastly, we have Can Bonomo and his awful song that totally didnt deserve to be in the Top 10, so there was no discrimination there because the song was so awful, it was hilarious how the Televote fell for that. And even there it got 50… Read more »
Well, that’s your opinion. I would like to ‘re emphasize, I think juries should sTay. I support juries. And I am not denying the massive televoting support certain ccountries have. But you are denying that the jury televote difference is consistently high for another ser of countries. In bother ways. That is A Fact.
Last year Armenia did better with juries…only 21 points from televote, so diaspora didn’t work.
And juries need to stay.
I think the changes make sense. They won’t change a thing to the regular viewer (though those who like to play with the spreadsheets may have some headaches!) and they reduce the chances that an isolated jury member can hurt some country chances (for political ideology or to harm strong competitors). The same would apply for someone that would downvote some entry based on its genre alone. Of course, it’s just a small step. It won’t change much if the whole jury act the same way. But it’s easier to manage math problems than human related issues.
Yes, it certainly is an improvement.
I’d suggest having bigger juries too. Rather than 5 member juries, I’d have the juries consist of 10 members (or more).
Better still, have a pool of 15 potential jurors, and randomly select 10 jurors right before the event. That way, there wouldn’t be enough time for any conspiracy.
I agree with that. Bigger juries would also allow more diversity of opinions.
Perhaps 10-member juries where 5 are appointed by the broadcaster and 5 by the EBU?
That’s impossible for ebu to select local juries.
Not sure how it works but I think that there will not be songs with zero points. Zero points always bothered me because several times I have voted for a song I liked but it ended up with no points at all. So I guess the change is a good thing!
No, you’re wrong. There’ll still be only ten song to receive Points from each Jury. It’s just a Change to make a single judge’s own opinion less influential. Each judge will rank the Songs from 1st to 26th. So the judge basically Awards Points from 12 for the 1st to 1 for the last song. Then all the judges Rankings will be combined and the Points will be awarded as usual.
But there’s at least a bigger chance of getting 1 or 2 points here and there. Like there was a UK juror who had Spain in 2nd, and one had them in 10th, in 2017. Dunno if that would have been enough, but still, the likelyhood increases.
Edit: That’s at least my prediction, that the scores in the lower ranges of the jurys’ ranking will be ‘messier’. But it might also happen that some safe songs which get mediocre rankings acroos the board will be left out.
Of Course, you’re right about that. Also, this provides a better Chance for polarising Songs like Hungary’s or Estonia’s. So I’m happy for These countries.
And Israel. This rule looks like taylor made for boosting Israel’s chances as well!
I hope Netta Will win this year! she’s got the best song!
She is the most overrated. This chicken doesn’t deserve to win
I liked Netta’s song during the first 10 days after it was revealed. I played it a lot then, but I got tired of it pretty quickly. Now I avoid it as much as I can, haha. It’s a funny song, but I think there are songs that deserve the trophy even more.
Totally agree with you Faezdel!! I think there several dark horses this year : France, Greece, Australia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria … or Greece…… or maybe another revealed by the rehearsals… like Jamala for example
There should be a mock voting of this using this kind of method. I am starting to get it but I still need to see how this works just for example. We still have a few weeks more.
Let’s say 4 jurors rank country X as their number 1, but the 5th juror puts them in last place (26th).
With the 2013-2017 this country would have a big drop, because of that one juror.
But with the new system, the drop will not be as huge as with the old system, which means the decision will be more group based.
Thanks. I already get that part earlier.
I think this new voting change will give underrated songs like Switzerland’s and Macedonia’s a better chance.
It’s a logical change, as long as we’re stuck with the 1-12 point system. Divisive entries will be rewarded and 1 or 2 rogue jurors can’t drag down the score too much on their own.
My only worry is what to do with my Excel spreadsheets. This is much more bothersome to calculate.
I’m not sure if this system is an improvement tbh. It gives even more power to the TOP 3 in the jury vote, strengthens the ANTI-vote; I think the algorhythm should be reversed, so that the anti-televote votes, which are the REAL problem with jury votes, have less of an impact. . Personally, I would prefer if the jurors were selected at random by the broadcaster from a various group of people: fans and non-fans, experts and amateurs from different walks of life put together for jury duty. It will make the vote significantly more interesting than any mathematical changes… Read more »
This is literally what the new system is all about. The lowest ranked countries suffer less damage than before.
It was like this before 1998. And they were mostly a bunch of grey and bored people who punished anything that sounded innovative, fun or modern (like Gina G) and only allowed extremely conservative songs to do well. Eurovision almost came to an end so todays juries are much, much better.
That’s also probably the reason why Ireland has seven victories and three consecutive ones!
I don’t think that is a fair view. Are the “grey and bored” jurors responsible for the “decline” of Eurovision on the 90’s? Happening exactly the same and simultaneously all over Europe? That is very simplistic, I am afraid.
Come on, do you really thing Eurovision “came to an end”? Because of the juries? No way!
I think juries used to be selected exactly as you said. (I heard, I’m not certain)
They said that very often the juries’ votes were “carried” or “influenced” by the occasional juror with charisma and strong opinions…
I don’t know if you get my meaning. I don’t mean vote rigging, buying or anything like that AT ALL, just heard former jury members commenting on their participation. With this change I understand this would be moderated, never completely eliminated.
So I’m guessing this would be the same format with the Semi-Finals..?
Anyone remember when this was a song contest. Now you have to be a Mathlete to understand who has won.
As wiwi said can we go a few years without a rule change please.
well, you will see the same results as always in your screen, just change the way the pooints are calculated backdoor. Don’t worry! 🙂
Unless you are chosen as a jury member,(or the person tallying the scores, perhaps) you really needn’t care about how exactly the scores are calculated, do you?
Hvala ne
Well I can’t understand the things from ESC Insight…
Renske can you tell it in Dutch? xD
De jury rankt de nummers nog steeds van 1 tot 25 (of 1 tot 17 / 18 in de halve finales). Dat deel blijft dus in principe hetzelfde. Het verschil zit hem in het berekenen van het groepsgemiddelde. Een voorbeeld: Nederland wordt als volgt beoordeeld Jury 1: 1e Jury 2: 1e Jury 3: 1e Jury 4e: 2e Jury 5: 25e Met het vorige systeem werd het gemiddelde berekend door simpelweg het gemiddelde te nemen van alle scores. Dat zou nu dus (1+1+1+2+26) / 5 ) 6e zijn. Met het huidige systeem is een score echter gelinkt met een aantal punten… Read more »
Erg bedankt voor de moeite! Ik begrijp het (eindelijk, haha)
Please Juries destroy the chicken because she will win the televoting
So all I got is that every jury member will do a top 10 ranking and then each top 10 will be converged into one jury vote of that country? But how do they the convergence then?
No, every Jury member will still rank all Songs. The 1st place will get 12 Points, the last place 1 Point. The other countries will receive something in between. Just look at the diagram.
We need a young brain as your here. Does that mean that some can get 4,6 points?
I explained it to you down below in a seperate comment. However, I’m not sure if all the Points given by the judges are added up or if the average is calculated.
the song with the highest average score gets the 12 then?
Well, it’s not only the music that unite us in ESC. Also doing math together. ; )
Exactly! The rest stays the same. The song with the 2nd highest score gets 10 and so on.
You are my hero this friday night. Feel sorry for you, must be hard to be among us old escfans sometimes! Chers!
Each juror still ranks all 26 songs. And the jury still only rewards points to the 10 highest ranked songs.
The only difference is in how the individual jururs’ rankings are weighted.
Before it would make now difference if two jurors both ranked a song 10th or one juror ranked a song 1st and another 20th as both would give an average rank of 10th. Now, one high ranking and one low ranking is worth more than two middle rankings. In other words, it’s better to have a few 1st places and a few last places than all 10th places.
Hmm, remember 2016. Maby there would be a different result for Poland and Russia, maby other coutries to?
Someone calculated that Sergey Lazarev would have won with this voting system.
Who?
Russia 2016
I was actually thinking about that.
It would have also helped Jamala to get points from the Juries who didnt award her anything.
Well they calculated wrong then. Without the formula they are using it’s impossible to work out exactly but approximately: Russia would have gained 8 points, Ukraine would have gained 10 points and Australia would have lost 8 points. This increase Ukraine’s margin of victory.
(The biggest changes in 2016 would have been Sweden gaining 12 points and Israel losing 19 points.)
In 2017 Italy would have done better with this system (gaining 20 points) and Australia worse (losing 26 points).
But this change applies only to the national juries, not the televote, doesn’t it?
I understand Lazarev won the jury vote but lost because of the televote. Am I wrong?
Sergey came 1st in the televotes and 5th in the jury votes.
As far as I have understood it: No. It doesn’t matter how the average from all the Jury members combined would be. If it’s the 10th highest average, it’ll get the 10th highest Points possible as always. And the 10th place always got one Point, this won’t Change. Instead of calculating the average of the Rankings (For example, the five members ranked a song 8th, 11th, 7th, 12th and 14th),the average of the Points will now be calculated. And the song with the 10th highest average will receive 1 Point.
This comment was meant for @Elin
Thank you.
Is there any example of this made? (besides the explanation on ESC Insight)
Feels like it’s time for questions.
Does this mean that someone that the jury rank on 10th place can get 4,3 and 11th place 3,9 points?
..and that the juries will range all 26 songs? If that’s the case, difficult!
I have probably missunderstood everything. Feel so stuped, so explain as if I was a child ; )
Does this mean that someone that the jury rank on 10th place can get 4,3 and 11th place 3,9 points? – Yes, the song will receive 4.3 and 3.9 *scorepoints*. Those points are not the ones that are presented in the end though. All the scorepoints that a song receives are added up (so the 4.3, 3.9 and three other scores). Then, the EBU will compare all the *total scorepoints*, and the song that received the most *scorepoints* will get the 12 points. An example. Switserland gets 4.3, (10th in ranking) 4.3 (10th), 12 (1st), 3,9 (11th) and 3,9 (11th)… Read more »
It does!
Brilliant and simple explanation, and people in San Marino are thrilled (especially Valentina Monetta). Sorry for the Swiss, but theay have already won twice!
I’m no math genius but this actually makes sense. Makes it harder to get 0 points from what I can gather.
Okay, I’m not a native Speaker and I haven’t finished School yet, but I somehow understood this new System… Had to read it two times tho. This Change doesn’t seem too drastic and I doubt that it’ll make such a deep Impact, but I’m fine with it. When I read the title I was kinda scared that something dramatic would happen again like in 2016. I still don’t like the idea, that the Jury votes are individually awarded and the televoting Points aren’t, because ,for me, the televote is a bit more interesting, but it really became more exciting with… Read more »
Also, I always had a problem with the few people actually sitting in the Jury. 5 people is just not enough imo. I’m not one of these people that still cry because juries exist, but I’d like to have much more experts in the Jury, even more than 10. Maybe this will be a change to be made in the next years.
Must be a reason why they are only 5 persons that we don’t know about?! I find it strange to.
We actually do know who the persons are. It is said every year again before the show
I think it has always been 5 people. During the 70’s there was only two people from each county acting as jurors. But since 1976 to 1998 I think 5 jurors was the average
I don’t think so, at least not in Spain (1976-1998). I believe they tried to have as broad a sample of the society as possible. I seem to recall they were 10 or 12 people at least, but I might be wrong.
Should be 100% jurie vote because with the televote the rubbish of chicken song has winning chances
If a “rubbish” song appeals to the public, what’s wrong with it having chances to win? It is a TV Show, a pop-songs contest, for goodness’ sake!