In May the Netherlands ended a 44 year wait for their fifth Eurovision win — despite failing to win either the jury vote or televote (a similar result we saw with Ukraine’s Jamala in 2016). But what happens if we take this year’s Eurovision result and apply the pre-2004 system, whereby only countries competing in the grand final vote? Would Duncan Laurence hang on to his Eurovision trophy? And how would this shake up the rest of the results?

In the three tables that follow, you can see what would have had happened if the pre-2004 system had been applied in Tel Aviv. These results are based on the actual points awarded by the 26 grand finalists, and differences from their actual voting results are indicated in brackets. As at Eurovision 2019, the tie-breaker rule is applied to all countries with the same total number of points — aka, the country with more televotes wins the tie.

Eurovision 2019: Alternative final results

In this first table, the results are based on the combined scores between the 26 grand finalists — after the corrected results from the EBU — and the top 5 have all swapped places. As a result, Mahmood would’ve dethroned Duncan Laurence as the new winner of Eurovision 2019 for Italy. Switzerland move up to third just ahead of Sweden under the tie-breaker rule, with Russia down to fifth.

Greece’s Katerine Duska would gain the most from the old system — moving up six places to 15th, just ahead of the Czech Republic under the tie-breaker rule. It also means Lake Malawi are the biggest loser of the old system, who fall 5 places from 11th to 16th.

  1. Italy – 313 points (Up 1 place)
  2. The Netherlands – 295 points (Down 1 place)
  3. Switzerland – 236 points (Up 1 place)
  4. Sweden – 236 points (Up 1 place)
  5. Russia – 226 points (Down 2 places)
  6. Norway – 218 points (No change)
  7. Azerbaijan – 192 points (Up 1 place)
  8. North Macedonia – 189 points (Down 1 place)
  9. Australia – 176 points (No change)
  10. Iceland – 129 points (No change)
  11. Denmark – 86 points (Up 1 place)
  12. Cyprus – 84 points (Up 1 place)
  13. Malta – 84 points (Up 1 place)
  14. Albania – 72 points (Up 3 places)
  15. Greece – 71 points (Up 6 places)
  16. Czech Republic – 71 points (Down 5 places)
  17. France – 60 points (Down 1 place)
  18. Slovenia – 52 points (Down 3 places)
  19. Estonia – 47 points (Up 1 place)
  20. San Marino – 43 points (Down 1 place)
  21. Serbia – 37 points (Down 3 places)
  22. Spain – 36 points (No change)
  23. Belarus – 22 points (Up 1 place)
  24. Israel – 21 points (Down 1 place)
  25. Germany – 17 points (No change)
  26. United Kingdom – 3 points (No change)

Eurovision 2019: Alternative televoting results

Of course, only televoting existed back in 2003. Here we focus on the televote and exclude the results from all 15 eliminated semi-finalists. Norway continued to top the table ahead of second placed Italy by 38 points, an increase from the 30-point margin KEiiNO had in the grand final televote this year.

San Marino would’ve dropped out of the top 10 and fallen 5 places to 15th, with Denmark taking its place having gained 5 places. Without the 3 points from Ireland, the United Kingdom also ended up with the dreaded nul points alongside Germany.

  1. Norway – 197 points (No change)
  2. Italy – 159 points (Up 1 place)
  3. The Netherlands – 153 points (Down 1 place)
  4. Switzerland – 140 points (Up 1 place)
  5. Russia – 136 points (Down 1 place)
  6. Iceland – 102 points (No change)
  7. Australia – 88 points (No change)
  8. Sweden – 71 points (Up 1 place)
  9. Azerbaijan – 60 points (Down 1 place)
  10. Denmark – 50 points (Up 5 places)
  11. North Macedonia – 43 points (Up 1 place)
  12. Albania – 39 points (Up 5 places)
  13. Spain – 35 points (Up 1 place)
  14. Slovenia – 33 points (Down 3 places)
  15. San Marino – 31 points (Down 5 places)
  16. Serbia – 30 points (Down 3 places)
  17. Estonia – 25 points (Down 1 place)
  18. Greece – 24 points (Up 3 places)
  19. Israel – 21 points (No change)
  20. Cyprus – 20 points (No change)
  21. France – 20 points (Down 3 places)
  22. Malta – 14 points (No change)
  23. Belarus – 13 points (No change)
  24. Czech Republic – 4 points (No change)
  25. Germany – 0 points (Up 1 place)
  26. United Kingdom – 0 points (Down 1 place)

Eurovision 2019: Alternative jury results

The juries weren’t brought back until 2009, so here are this year’s jury results based on the 26 grand finalists only. Although North Macedonia was eventually confirmed as the jury winner from the EBU, Sweden would’ve won the jury vote under the 2003 system — and all the countries that finished within the top 10 except Azerbaijan have swapped places as a result.

  1. Sweden – 165 points (Up 1 place)
  2. Italy – 154 points (Up 2 places)
  3. North Macedonia – 146 points (Down 2 places)
  4. The Netherlands – 142 points (Down 1 place)
  5. Azerbaijan – 132 points (No change)
  6. Switzerland – 96 points (Up 1 place)
  7. Russia – 90 points (Up 2 places)
  8. Australia – 88 points (Down 2 places)
  9. Malta – 70 points (Up 1 place)
  10. Czech Republic – 67 points (Down 2 places)
  11. Cyprus – 64 points (No change)
  12. Greece – 47 points (Up 2 places)
  13. France – 40 points (No change)
  14. Denmark – 36 points (Down 2 places)
  15. Albania – 33 points (Up 2 places)
  16. Iceland – 27 points (Down 1 place)
  17. Estonia – 22 points (Up 3 places)
  18. Norway – 21 points (No change)
  19. Slovenia – 19 points (Down 3 places)
  20. Germany – 17 points (Up 1 place)
  21. San Marino – 12 points (Up 2 places)
  22. Belarus – 9 points (No change)
  23. Serbia – 7 points (Down 4 places)
  24. United Kingdom – 3 points (No change)
  25. Spain – 1 point (No change)
  26. Israel – 0 points (No change)

Photo: Thomas Hanses

112
Leave a Reply

avatar
22 Comment threads
90 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
37 Comment authors
SasaAnitaLoin diciArthur GlenetKosey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sasa
Guest
Sasa

The results are good like they are. Cyprus,Malta and Albania were already overrated, so they shouldn’t rise places

Anita
Guest
Anita

The rule makes the winner, everything is political 😉

Arthur Glenet
Guest
Arthur Glenet

I made the alternative results of ESC 2019 grand final with the 2013 system with the average rankings if you’re interested I can give it to you Wiwibloggs 🙂

Ted
Guest
Ted

i love these type of articles. Thank you team wiwi

TRENT
Guest
TRENT

Let’s do the whole thing again in a Christmas special with Hataari and freedom of speech at the realm, a gagged Madonna, a winner appreciated by Euope/Australia – a contest anywhere but Israel. It was such a dismal forgettable affair – I’d rather like to black out 2019 in Tel Aviv!

Safia
Guest
Safia

That’s totally crazy that we could have had a completely different winner!

Colin
Guest
Colin

By Pre-2004 rules, automatic qualifiers would be Big Five (including Italy), but also not only the winner (Israel), but also top 10 from the previous year. Meaning that AQs would be – Italy, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Israel, Cyprus, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden and Australia. There would be only one SF snd ten presumed qualifiers would be – Greece, Norway, North Macedonia, Iceland, Azerbaijan, Switzerland, Slovenia, Serbia, Malta and The Netherlands.

Colin
Guest
Colin

Yeah, Moldova would’ve qualified too, meaning them and Austria would’ve been the biggest winners of this system. Borderline qualifiers like Belarus and Denmark are the most grateful ones that the system changed.

Jjjjjj
Guest
Jjjjjj

Albania and Lithuania also would’ve automatically qualified, because Italy and Germany were in the top 10. That’s why Ireland was in the final in 2004 and Malta and Russia in 2005

Do your stupid thing
Guest
Do your stupid thing

The real winner is Norway, the televote winner. Argue as much as you like, but when you know people didn’t wanted you, you know the most important part is missing. I pity the overall winners that didn’t won the televote.

pepe
Guest
pepe

We didn’t hear the Norwegians complain in 2014, 2015 or 2017 when it were the juries that pushed their songs into the top 10. Had it been the tele voters decision Norway would have ended at the right side of the score board. But I bet nobody in Norway even noticed that.

TRENT
Guest
TRENT

Totally agree! Song aside, the Netherlands was not a worthy winner! The system is totally insane crowning a winner with no jury nor televote win. Not watching next year – lost interest!

ESCFan2009
Guest
ESCFan2009

@TRENT: No, the system is not insane. It says “have the best overall score to win”. So if the best score is 2nd jury and 2nd tele , it is fair, because it is the best score. If you are 1st jury but 26th tele (extreme example), you simply have not the best score…

Arthur Glenet
Guest
Arthur Glenet

Since it is a COMPETITION, it is right to have a panel of music experts that (are supposed to) judge objectively the package they are being presented. The gap was harsh, that’s for sure, but may be the norwegian performance had not as many reasons that would push jurors to vote for them as other performances. The song is fun, and does not have a heavy message, which jurors do not necesseraly like (take Spain for instance), the staging was good, but not outstanding, and the radio friendly aspect of the song might be shadowed by the cultural elements, so… Read more »

Graph
Guest
Graph

Has anyone calculated the results with the 2009-2015 system, where each country gave just 1 set of points that averaged jury and televote rank?

Graph
Guest
Graph

It looks like I found the answer. Two Youtubers did the calculation for the final, and while they have different results, they both agree that Netherlands would have still won, and UK would have come last with 0 points.

For the semi- finals, it looks like Poland would have qualified instead of Belarus, and Lithuania would have qualified instead of Denmark.

Sources:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAJqhxxM1A
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhb2_KtRqdI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S2iN3pqKhWM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ifDdEqcao

Azaad
Guest
Azaad
Graph
Guest
Graph

Thanks for the link. So Netherlands would have still won, and UK would have come last with 0 points. Perhaps the new system is better because this year’s entry was definitely not in the same class as Jemini.

Azaad
Guest
Azaad

You’re welcome 🙂 . I personally think the new system is better because it recognises success with both the juries and telemeters better, as opposed to rewarding songs that merely average well with them.

Elio
Guest
Elio

I calculated it some days ago : with the 1957 system, italy win ! 😀

Fatima
Guest
Fatima

That would have been a far more exciting and straightforward voting sequence than what we saw on May 18. For a start there would have been time for all 26 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-10-12 announcements. And then, with just an 18-point winning margin, the result would have been in doubt until the last couple of sets of votes. No need for fake melfest-esque suspense. No chance the result could be spoiled.

Nederland
Guest
Nederland

Imagine if there would just be jury vote this year. The wrong winner would’ve been announced.. XD

Jake
Guest
Jake

EBU would have covered it up and swept it under the rug as well.

Davve
Guest
Davve

Just shows.. juries are needed and televoting result should have less importance

Jo.
Guest
Jo.

lmao 😀

Justice
Guest
Justice

Down with the juries. It’s the only unbearable result here.

Charles
Guest
Charles

… because they don’t fit with your own taste? Or is your taste a universal rule we ought to worship and follow unquestionably? So that I understand the criteria I should follow next year when I televote …

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Your argument makes no sense. The whole point of wanting 100% televote is that it is fairer and more democratic than what we currently have – don’t you see that you are already being told what to follow?

Justice
Guest
Justice

I suppose some people want to be told. Democracy is not for everyone, apparently.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

The uncompromising rule of the majority has nothing to do with democracy. But that’s a common mistake these days.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Please enlighten me as to what democracy is then please

Justice
Guest
Justice

You have got to be kidding me.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

One of the key aspects that differentiates democracy from its bad form, ochlocracy, literally is the protection of minorities. The majority always getting their way is antidemocratic and doesn’t work. The ancient Greeks already knew that and now you do, too. And by the way: I wasn’t the person equating the Eurovision juryvote to a lack of democracy (I would never do that), just in case you planned this to be your loophole.

Do your stupid thing
Guest
Do your stupid thing

Minorities must integrate, and have their voices individually, not with privilege of being a united power, because others are not that either.
Why can’t people vote for whatever song they f.. like?

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

Your notion of what minorities can or cannot do is truly frightening, I hope you’re not in power anywhere.
And people can vote for whatever song they like. Or is Jon Ola Sand standing next to you while you’re dialling?

Do your stupid thing
Guest
Do your stupid thing

So you, who downvoted, you don’t think people should just vote for what they like, nothing more or less. And that user Charles said that in the 90’s was in jury for his country. So he’s a jury member haunting this blog.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

I literally just said that you already can vote for what you like.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

No, you are wrong, protection of minorities is a good thing when the minorities have no power. Protection of minorities when they have all the power is a bad thing. If we lived by your rule, then dictatorship would be fine, the rich can get richer, and true democracy will be a distant memory. Oh wait…

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

I assume, we’re still talking about Eurovision, right? Since when do minorities have _all_ the power?

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

On the basis that the jurors constitute 200 people out of 180 million watching the show, yet they hold 50% of the voting rights, granted they don’t have “all the power” but they clearly have a vastly disproportionate amount of power. It kind of reminds me of the voting system in Victorian England where men with money or who were perceived to have greater intellect were allowed to vote and everyone else wasn’t. It’s not quite like that as at least the paupers are allowed 50% of the vote, but it’s not far off. And I thought we had moved… Read more »

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

Well, juries have some power – that’s how juries work. You don’t like them, and that’s your call, but don’t compare this to a voting system, where you didn’t have a say in anything because you lacked money or a y-chromosome. That’s different, don’t you think?

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Not really, tbh. Power and control manifest themselves in lots of different ways, and Eurovision is just one of them. Plus, juries are pulled from the general public (at least where I am from), which is again not the case in Eurovision. But don’t worry, my eyes have already been opened to the views of a lot of people in the Eurovision fandom, and I am now already depressed enough, so I don’t need you to reply again.

Do your stupid thing
Guest
Do your stupid thing

You are right, but don’t expect to be understood. Some people know only what they know from certain books. Dictatorship of minorities it’s also a thing.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

True, I know this from a book. It was my 9th grade politics school book, and I don’t consider it offensive reading.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

That would make a lot of sense. Some countries still have to mature in their thought processes.

Justice
Guest
Justice

Thank god Victor Orban is ruling your country. You deserve him. Your condescending tone doesn’t make your remarks any more right. I live in an actual democracy, so trust me, I have a good glimpse at how democracy works. What minority needs to be protected in a Eurovision voting? You are unbelievable.

pepe
Guest
pepe

In what world is democracy that you can vote up to 20 times per SIM card? Especially with the ridiculously long voting window, tele voting has nothing to do with democracy. It is an invitation for abuse. Or do you think it is really democracy that the Norwegian, British and Irish tele vote are won every year by Lithuania?

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Yes, I do actually think it is democracy because it is what most people have voted for. Plus, I worked out that as a televoter you would need over 2,000 phones to come even close to the same power that a jury member has, so that argument is pointless. Plus, the juries have very ably proved how corrupt they are anyway, and if we are going to have corruption, I would rather have a corruption that is open to everyone.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

You on the other hand have been nothing but delightful.
And since when is Victor Orban ruling my country? You people crack me up with all your assumptions.
Oh, and may I refer you to my earlier comment? I knew, you were going to do this. Obviously, no one needs to be protected from anyone, since the Eurovision juryvote is not a democracy issue – in contrast to what you have stated above. That was my whole point.

Justice
Guest
Justice

Of course it is a democracy issue when five people have the same weight as millions of potential voters in a country, especially when a lot of those juries have been more biased than the televoters. THAT is the whole point. Deny it all you want, everyone is entitled to their opinion (however wrong) in a democracy.

Tibor
Guest
Tibor

When have I ever denied you (or anyone) the right to your opinion? You people need to read before you blare out baseless accusations.
You on the other hand demean everything I say in the vilest possible way, just because I don’t agree with you and although I am only stating well known facts about the definition of democracy.

Justice
Guest
Justice

lol i mean if it helps, I can tell you who to vote for, but the beauty of televoting is choosing whoever you like, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Is it too much freedom for you to handle?

Rasmus
Guest
Rasmus

Televoters cant vote. Take Greece/Cyprus and 12 points from UK,Ireland,Norway to Lithunaia for 10 years in a row. NO THANKS

pepe
Guest
pepe

There is a big flaw in this article. It might be interesting to look at the result with only the juries or only the tele votes of the finalists voting. But the finalists were decided by a combined jury/televote result. In semi 1 the tele voters had Belarus out and Poland in. And the juries has San Marino out and Hungary in. In semi 2 the tele voters had Lithuania in and Denmark out and the juries had Romania and Moldova in and Norway and Albania out. So if you only look at the jury results or only the tele… Read more »

Héctor
Guest
Héctor

Good point there. Some things would change applying that format in the SF.

dan
Guest
dan

If would be 100% televote, you could not say the word ROBBED. People like what they like, is this painful, isn’t it?

pepe
Guest
pepe

Strange article. Pre 2004 there were no semi finals. Only the countries that performed in the final participated in those years.

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

While some of us are still questioning the need of juries, I still think they’re necesarry to keep countries to send something more professionally. The 2000s was not the best in terms of quality IMO (also applying to worldwide music in general). Adding that the point system was fully on televote, this would represent ‘the votes of the whole Europe’, but it affected how the contest was also shaped for public taste and it relied much on gimmicks, especially on 2006 and 2007 where some of the songs are… questionable (except for you, Verka, we all love you!) In 2006… Read more »

Okan idu?
Guest
Okan idu?

Who do you think didnt deserve to win during the 2000s. I had some other favourites in some years but generally most liked songs won.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Spot on, there is a high degree of snobbery on this thread about 2000-2009. I just listened to all those songs again and there are some really nice ones. Also, look at the top 20 most popular televote songs voted from 2010-19 and there is only one which would be regarded as questionable by the “quality police”. Have more faith in the public! There is no need for juries and it just compromises the integrity of the competition!

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

… “high degree of snobbery” already crumbled your argument, come on. You’re already taking biases here. You can like 2000-2009, but others might not. Either way it’s still a matter of taste, nobody can shut you down for liking that decade. “There is no need for juries and it just compromises the integrity of the competition!” And a competition without juries is only a show–as long as the song has a lot of support then it mostly would win or place deserving/undeservingly high. That would be a more important integrity problem — it resorts more to a popularity contest. But… Read more »

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Oh come on, you think this is not a popularity contest? You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think you can have a serious music competition that 180 million people watch. You could have a serious music competition that 180 people watch, but not 180 million. Eurovision thrives on it being a popularity contest!

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

Hm, maybe you don’t get it yet?

With 180 million audience, it has the aspects of a popularity contest, but without juries, its direction would resort heavier into a popularity contest. Never said ESC doesn’t put importance on popularity, but never said it shouldn’t rely on popularity, so I don’t really see what you’re trying to prove me wrong here.

Denis
Guest
Denis

Its not snobbery pointing out the 2000s were a travesty, most ESC fan agrees on that. It was all a kitsch fest everybody laughed at. And winners everybody laughed at. I mean in 2001 we had a great French ballad that still is the best France has been. They also had Antique with a great song. And who won? Estonia with a poor mans disco song no one remember the day after. Meanwhile everybody still remembers Antique and Natasha St- Pier . The only songs that deserved to win that decade was from 2003, 2005 and 2006.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Well, you’ve kind of proved your musical taste by including 2016 as a deserved winner – lol!

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

Pointing that this is also taken from personal taste, I would replace
1998: Dana with Imaani or Edsilia
2001: Dave & Tanel with Antique
2002: Marie N with everything
2003: Sertab with t.A.t.u
2006: Lordi with Hari Mata Hari
2008: Dima Bilan with Ani Lorak, Kalomira or Sirusho
Yeah, it’s pretty jumbled over here.

noyan
Guest
noyan

well sorry but in 2003, Sertab totally deserved to win..

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

That’s okay, Sertab is also amazing anyways. I just prefer t.A.t.u, most probably because I just like a bit more.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

I have a philosophical question – what is the point of Eurovision? Is it about finding the “best” song in Europe? And to help us, we will let some “experts” have a disproportionate say in telling us what we should think of as quality? Or is this a fun event which brings people together in celebrating what makes us different and the same all at once? If it is the latter, which I believe it to be, then why do we have juries? Surely we should let Europe decide what it likes the most in any particular year? Music is… Read more »

dan
Guest
dan

Power to the people. Music doesn’t exists otherwise.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

the point is entertainment sis simple as that. i agree that juries make no sense, they were created to avoid bloc voting but they’re actually more biased than the televoters…

dan
Guest
dan

No truer words were ever spoken

pepe
Guest
pepe

You mean like the Italian juries ignoring and down voting Mahmood’s biggest threats?

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

the italian jury has ALWAYS voted randomly, even with we weren’t the favorites. since 2014 they’ve given 12 points to softengine, (morland,) barei, dihaj, alexander rybak n leonora kii

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

The conclusion: Why would we need juries?
While Eurovision was supposed to ‘bring people together’, it’s still a competition. And competition needs juries. And as it has been show in the 00s, they’re more than necessary.

dan
Guest
dan

What has been shown in 00’s ? What was in fashion back then. It has nothing to do with jury or no ef ..ing jury. In the 00’s that was the music in fashion : latino-pop-dance-whatever.

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

Or it was an awful decade for music in general, I’ll explain up above.

dan
Guest
dan

You must decide if it was because of the lack of jury, or because the decade was like that overall. I love the 00’s, the best time of my life!

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

It was influenced by both: the 00s were awful in general, but the lack of jury also shaped the songs participating to cater to the general taste.

dan
Guest
dan

What is wrong with general taste? Who buys music, after all? I have so much h a t e in my heart for snobs artsy fartsy that destroyed all the fun of Eurovision.

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

I agree with you that general public mostly bought music, but that is if we interpret it from an entertainment and commercial POV. When it was viewed that way, ‘good music’ would mean the one that can sell like hot cakes — is it a good music? We’re not sure. As long as it can sell there’s no need to question that. Eurovision is still a competition for music, anyways, and it should embrace every music, from the bops to the flows. It would also mean that ‘artsy-fartsy’ thing is also a part of music, viewing it as a fundamental… Read more »

Charles
Guest
Charles

… you reminded me of when I was a teen and I had to be told that I was no longer a 10 year old child … you can fill in the gaps …

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

And you remind me of the type of person who thinks they know better than everyone else – you’ll learn one day my friend.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Ok, based on your philosophy, we might as well make it 100% jury then? That way, we don’t even have to exercise any of our own free will and can just sit there, clap when instructed, and be told what to like or not like? And none of this “50:50 is a good balance” bs. It is still manipulation, just not on quite as grand a scale. You should have more faith in the human race!

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

they ain’t necessary when they vote exactly like televoters in the 00s. montenegro giving 12 to serbia both last and this year, greece giving 12 to cyprus, the same countries giving 12s to sweden, armenia and azerbaijan ranking each other last, azerbaijan and russia always securing high jury points for each other, blatant vote exchanging and rigging… makes no sense to have juries when they serve these bias

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

Some of these broadcasters might be putting their juries under pressure of voting for some certain countries or giving an unknown transaction behind the scenes, I don’t doubt that. I’m concerned that EBU or Reference hasn’t put any public statement on investigating these problems. But also considering the effects of possible planned withdrawals (which would cost money and PR) or how hard it might be to track down/investigate this to the level of broadcaster, I would suggest they’re probably ‘still working on it’.

ESCFan2009
Guest
ESCFan2009

The point of juries for me is as followed: The public votes for songs, when they like it. This means, I like the melody, I like the vibe, I am touched emotionally, I like the staging or maybe I even know the singer or find him hot? These are all reasons for you and me to vote. Juries should be professionals (singers, producers, songwriters…). This means for me they should honour things like “How well is the song composed? Are the lyrics appropriate or creative enough? Does the staging fit the song in an appropriate way? How good is the… Read more »

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

^another good point, thank you, ESCFan2009!

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

So if I am interpreting your post correctly, I think you are coming down on the side that the point of Eurovision is as a pure song contest – ie, assessing which act has the greatest technical proficiency? That is perfectly fine, each to their own. My point was that my hypothesis is that most of the 180 million people who watch the show don’t think the same. They see it as a fun, entertainment show which celebrates the diversity across Europe. You could have a serious music show which would warrant having juries (even though part of me thinks… Read more »

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

I think you missed my point. My interpretation is that you believe it is a serious, objective song contest? I respect your opinion even though I think there is a paradox in that for the reasons I outlined in my original post. I believe most people in Europe would see Eurovision as a fun, entertainment show, and in that context, juries are not necessary.

ESCFan2009
Guest
ESCFan2009

@Kosey: I see 🙂 I also believe, it is for fun in 1st place. That is why we are spending time here and commenting, right? Let’s enjoy it 😀 But yes, my idea was to create a set of “objective items”, to make the competition fair and transparent, that you can rank the songs in an “objective way” – but ofc your taste is always subjective! 🙂

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

We’re all here for fun, and I appreciate your post. Of course, fairness and transparency are important. Where it gets tricky imo is when the fun is controlled in some way. A lot of people talk about ESC being the Olympics or World Cup of Music. But really, it isn’t and it never will be, at least not in the sense of a competition, because I honestly don’t believe you can be objective with something like music. Someone running the fastest or scoring the most goals is objective. Music just isn’t like that. Perhaps if ESC had rules which dictated… Read more »

funkerman25
Guest
funkerman25

Juries are mainly there to ensure the A choice of EBU is guaranteed to win. Their importance in bringing down less worthy entries like San Marino is irrelevant. This year, Norway and Italy could easily have won it if it wasn’t for the juries and the EBU’s preferred choice aka Netherlands.

pepe
Guest
pepe

So Italy could easily have won, had it not been for the juries? Apparently you completely missed that the tele voters gave Mahmood less points then Duncan.
Nice try, though.

pepe
Guest
pepe

Allowing people to vote up to 20 times per phone with several SIM cards has nothing to do with democracy. In a real democracy every individual has only one vote.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Without knowing exactly how many people vote, but assuming it is millions, having one sad person voting twenty times on several SIM cards would still have a minuscule % influence on the overall outcome in comparison to one of c. 200 jurors who have 50% of the overall vote.

AlvYronwood
Guest
AlvYronwood

While I wanna agree with your statement, at the core its really, really idealistic. Yes, eurovision is all about bringing people together and making people happy, but I am terrified of letting the people choosing the winner, I prefer a combination. Why? because the worst years in Eurovision history happen to be the ones where the public had full power, back then, Eurovision was all about gimmick and joke acts, some of them were cool I guess, like Verka but other (and by other I mean the large, large majority) were cringeworthy, Dustin the duck, Chikilicuatre, we are the winners… Read more »

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

Just out of interest, what do you think about Lordi? The reason I ask is that I criticized it on here recently for being a terrible joke act, a pale imitation of proper rock music. And I was met by a wave of negativity from Eurovision fans who celebrated its win as a classic Eurovision winner. It seems to me you can’t have it both ways….

INAMOO
Guest
INAMOO

Maybe you need to look for an alternative song contest with a voting system that highly favors you if Eurovision is unable to meet your insatiable demands.

Sabrina
Guest
Sabrina

In an ideal world, we would only have quality entries and people would decide what’s their favorite. But people don’t vote just for quality. They vote for neighbours, for the attractiveness of the performer, for the memes, for what’s easy to consume, for the underdog. And then, countries that want to win would naturally aim for those other factors, since quality is still subjective and harder to achieve. We know the juries are there primarily to stop bloc voting and discourage joke entries. Of course, they have huge problems: bloc voting is still there (and EBU keeps ignoring it), there’s… Read more »

Fatima
Guest
Fatima

But Kosey, it’s no fun when the result is skewed by the impact of bloc voting. Even when that voting is understandable given that the televoters concerned were all in the same country in recent history. Juries are needed to provide a counterpoint. I think people are forgetting what was happening, particularly in 2003-2008.

Kosey
Guest
Kosey

It’s a hard one, I understand the nervousness of returning to that. However, I think the central concept remains, I am just not comfortable with a small group of people telling the majority that they did not vote correctly. That is a dangerous route which a whole country is now demonstrating on a much larger, and more important, scale. It’s better to leave it to the people, even if you think the people are making a terrible mistake.

Sam
Guest
Sam

Interesting results, but I still prefer the current system. All countries should have a say in the final just because of their participation in the contest.
What I wonder, however, is whether an independent jury made up of international music experts from countries not taking part in the show could be a good idea to award some extra (1-12) points… What do you think?

Azaad
Guest
Azaad

It would be good in terms of counteracting the recent phenomenon of favourites voting each other down via juries. On the other hand, it would likely lead to a greater homogenisation of the songs competing in the contest as this outside panel will likely reward the music most commonly heard on Western radios, another problem with the juries right now.

Loin dici
Guest
Loin dici

“whether an independent jury made up of international music experts from countries not taking part in the show could be a good idea to award some extra (1-12) points”

It’s a good idea, though how many countries would be taking part? They also didn’t participate, so it’ll be a ‘why bother to pay?’ kind of situation.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

there’s already enough juries deciding far too many points

James
Guest
James

As much as the public.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

oh wow these results slay

ESCFan2009
Guest
ESCFan2009

Of course you say this, you are Italian 😀

dan
Guest
dan

And you are German that likes jury, because…0 points from televote. Lame.

dan
Guest
dan

Italy for the win. If you could not send a song to qualify, why should you vote in the final?
Otherwise you must create a “rest of the world – jury” to be fair.

pepe
Guest
pepe

Somewhere else on this page you claim juries should be abolished. You do realise that had it been the tele voters decision Italy wouldn’t have won with a system in which only the finalists vote either?