EUROVISION 2020 - General Discussion Thread

[escYOUnited]

Please post any and all discussions regarding the contest itself, host country and city, organisation, rumours and other topics not related to any specific country's selection process.

 

[HayashiM]

Dont know which is true

Oh, my bad, probably the second

 

[NikolaiMoller]

OMG this Saturday is gonna be wild!!!

 

[Edweis]

So many shows on Saturday night and I won't be able to follow them past 22:00 if I want to be functionnal the next morning

 

[ESC94]

This will be a very exciting month, can´t wait to hear more entries.

 

[Mainshow]

"Friend of a Friend"

 

[Mainshow]

Are my speakers broken or does anyone have serious sound problems with the stream as well?

 

[ESCConor]

The One thing I would love to see at Eurovision this year, more upbeat tempo songs.

Im getting a bit bored with ballads to be honest.

 

[NikolaiMoller]

I really like the diversity we have in the first 3 songs.

 

[Mainshow]

I really like the diversity we have in the first 3 songs.

It's nice indeed, I'd rather have some quality instead, though.

 

[ESCConor]

One thing I like to see addressed after this year - The Voting System.

Here is an article from 2012 on why the borda count voting system which is currently used for ESC is unfair and why the contest should move towards a new system of voting.

Electoral Reform for Eurovision?

Eurovision is upon us once again with everyone’s favourite celebration of Europe’s questionable musical talent. Certain traditions will no doubt hold: certain acts will be flamboyant

www.electoral-reform.org.uk

 

[anto475]

One thing I like to see addressed after this year - The Voting System.

Here is an article from 2012 on why the borda count voting system which is currently used for ESC is unfair and why the contest should move towards a new system of voting.

Electoral Reform for Eurovision?

Eurovision is upon us once again with everyone’s favourite celebration of Europe’s questionable musical talent. Certain traditions will no doubt hold: certain acts will be flamboyant

www.electoral-reform.org.uk

While I absolutely agree and love the STV and wish that it was used for all votes everywhere, I think that voting at the contest must be as simple as possible so as not to lose the attention of the average viewer.

 

[Mainshow]

The general public is already unable to cope with the current voting system. Let's not over-complicate things any further because it can easily backfire.

 

[Uto]

Doing a transferable vote isn't that difficult for the viewer if you limit it to three choices for instance. The technology required for stuff like this is trivial nowadays.

 

[Loindici]

With the electoral reform system we need to give points to as many songs as we have to. Kind of dreadful if in a country there needs to be 20 songs awarded by points and the announcers would make it a hard time for the audience to follow which one is thr highest point.

Also 12 points becomes a eurovision 'trademark' so why waste such a strong identity

 

[ESC94]

With the electoral reform system we need to give points to as many songs as we have to. Kind of dreadful if in a country there needs to be 20 songs awarded by points and the announcers would make it a hard time for the audience to follow which one is thr highest point.

Also 12 points becomes a eurovision 'trademark' so why waste such a strong identity

You´re so right with the highlighted part. The twelve points are such an importan part of ESC identity that getting rid of them but be a huge loss. And to be honest, "25 points go to..." for example simply doesn´t have the same "magic".

 

[Uto]

With the electoral reform system we need to give points to as many songs as we have to. Kind of dreadful if in a country there needs to be 20 songs awarded by points and the announcers would make it a hard time for the audience to follow which one is thr highest point.

Also 12 points becomes a eurovision 'trademark' so why waste such a strong identity

This isn't the case. I know this is what the article says, but they are trying to explain a system that tries to solve two things:

- First past the post -> the winner is who is voted first most often instead of who is actually most popular
- Lion's share (don't believe that is the English term, but I'll just run with it) -> Result has positive feedback effect on division of winnings

We don't need this. What we might try to solve is FPTP, not Lion's share, because the latter has already been pretty much fixed as it is. The winner does not take the lion's share in our current config, instead they only get 12 points without regard to how massive their victory might have been. FPTP can be solved by using transferable votes and setting the post at the second lowest ranking country every step. Let's say we have these votes:

1. A 7 votes
2. B 10 votes
3. C 5 votes
4. D 3 votes

Second lowest is A, anyone below that is out. D is dropped and for those votes the second option is now chosen. Let's say they all wanted C as their second option:

1. A 7 votes
2. B 10 votes
3. C 8 votes

Now A is dropped instead of C and C ranks higher than A. There will be a final ranking this way and at that point it's still 12,10,8 etc.

This way you will still have a better result, but you don't lose the iconic point system. The article doesn't give this option, but it exists.

 

[ESC94]

Maybe I´m conservative, but I think the current system is alright.

 

[HayashiM]

This isn't the case. I know this is what the article says, but they are trying to explain a system that tries to solve two things:

- First past the post -> the winner is who is voted first most often instead of who is actually most popular
- Lion's share (don't believe that is the English term, but I'll just run with it) -> Result has positive feedback effect on division of winnings

We don't need this. What we might try to solve is FPTP, not Lion's share, because the latter has already been pretty much fixed as it is. The winner does not take the lion's share in our current config, instead they only get 12 points without regard to how massive their victory might have been. FPTP can be solved by using transferable votes and setting the post at the second lowest ranking country every step. Let's say we have these votes:

1. A 7 votes
2. B 10 votes
3. C 5 votes
4. D 3 votes

Second lowest is A, anyone below that is out. D is dropped and for those votes the second option is now chosen. Let's say they all wanted C as their second option:

1. A 7 votes
2. B 10 votes
3. C 8 votes

Now A is dropped instead of C and C ranks higher than A. There will be a final ranking this way and at that point it's still 12,10,8 etc.

This way you will still have a better result, but you don't lose the iconic point system. The article doesn't give this option, but it exists.

I think people without a mathematical/statistical mindset can't really appreciate this approach, so the "average viewer" argument is sadly right - the casual viewer probably wouldn't get it (well, maybe the "send us your top 3 ranking" instruction wouldn't be that hard to understand, I am not sure). I absolutely love it though and I would be very happy if it got implemented.

Anyway, I think the easiest and probably the least controversial improvement of the current system is to increase the number of juries per one panel (to, say, 10, as 5 is absolutely ridiculous). Plus returning to the 2016-2018 way of the televote presentation.

 

[HayashiM]

Just one more idea how to present the televote - which could be the best of the both worlds.

Let's say we start doing it the current way - we take the lowest ranked country in the juryvote and announce its televote points. Then the second lowest, etc. EXCEPT when the country is in the top 10 of the televote - than we skip it (at least it can properly celebrate its achievement, and we get some additional exciting element). Once we only have the top 10 televote countries left, we announce their points in the old 2016-2018 way, in the order from the lowest televote points to the highest. It's also maybe preferable to announce the winning country first when there is only two countries left.

I dislike two things about the current way. First, the winner of the televote isn't properly announced as such and doesn't get to celebrate that moment. Second, it is true that you can (as a viewer) make some quick calculations and get to know the winner beforehand with both systems, but there is more room for these calculations in the current one. With the 2016-2018 system, you won't know anything before the 2nd best televote country and its points are announced. With the current system - well I knew Duncan won the moment his TV points were announced (there weren't enough points left for either of and to top him), and in more extreme cases of discrepancy, you can know the winner even earlier, when there is still 3-4 countries to go. Yuck.

What I like about the current system is that it maybe isn't so harsh towards the lower scoring countries - my idea would preserve that.

 

[Sean]

Here's our guide to today's shows. What is everyone watching tonight?

TONIGHT: Super Saturday 2020

Yes, that's right - it's the day you've all been waiting for! Super Saturday is here for 2020 and it's come earlier than usual, but we don't mind when a bumper

www.escunited.com