Juries- keep'em or trash'em?
- Thread starter r3gg13
- Start date
- Watchers 5
The juries are bribed. I can`t find another reason for the talentless unspectacular and boring song and show from Sweden to get 3rd place.
Bribing 5 people is way easier then bribing a whole nation.
I'm not sure Sweden would be the country bribing the judges though... Accusations of jury bribing are as old as the contest itself (the controversial Spanish victory in 1968 being the most telling example), but I think they're mostly based on assumptions rather than actual evidence.
@CC92: Every year there are strange voting patterns. It's not restricted to the jury, the public also votes in a very odd way too.
Last edited:
^ Bribing and political or ideologic voting are two different pairs of shoes. Do you really believe it is a coincidence that the NDR each year gives 70 to 90 per cent to western countries, preferred neighbours? Also, and that is a proven fact and no way less important, they have a mission disadvantaging uncommercial, especially ethnic/folkloristisc songs.
Public might have odd voting patterns sometimes but it is fine as they are the majority that decides.
Public might have odd voting patterns sometimes but it is fine as they are the majority that decides.
"The majority" is a very, very relative term considering each country however small has the same number of voices. Not to mention the voting system (1-8-10-12) which effectively ignores votes for countries out of the top 10 and heavily advantages the top 2. So yeah, "majority"...
AllThatJazz
Active member
- Joined
- December 21, 2010
- Posts
- 223
@ CC92,
thanks for correcting a mistake in my calculation, I’ll come back to that in a minute.
In my post, I didn’t try to define “fairness” as that is a tricky term to use within a music contest. I tried to argue that the juries have made the voting less predictable. You don’t agree and I admit that predictablility is a subjective matter. Let me try to explain once again, why I - for my part - find the voting less predictable than in previous years:
Regarding the Belarussian votes, I couldn’t predict that their 12 points would go to Georgia this year. I feel convinced (I don’t know for certain, I just feel convinced) that if there had been 100 % televoting, these 12 points would’ve went to Russia as they did from 2004-2008. After all, it’s not (as you write) unlikely that Russia received 12 points from the televoters. A hypothetical example: RUS 12+0, GEO 10+7, UKR 6+10, GER 2+12, MOL 8+5, AZE 7+6 = Russia 5 points.
Regarding the Danish votes, I couldn’t predict that our 12 points would go to Ireland this year. I feel convinced that we would have given our top mark to Sweden, if there had been 100 % televoting. After all, we rewarded Sweden with 89 points in the finals from 1999 to 2008.
Regarding the Dutch votes, you’re right and I’m wrong. Netherlands only rewarded Turkey with 12 points in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2008 they gave ‘em 10 points. However, from 2009-2010 Turkey only received 8 points from the Netherlands despite the high placings of the songs. That’s for me a clear example that the voting has become less biased. I don’t think that it’s a question of Ducth people’s taste when songs like “Rimi rimi ley” and “Süper Star” gets 12 points, while “Düm tek tek” and “We could be the same” gets 8 points.
To sum up: As many others, I would like the voting to be much more transparent. After all, my examples are just an outsiders conviction and not facts. Just as your claim that the juries are bribed is a conviction.
As I wrote, the juries aren’t perfect. It’s still not hard to predict where many 12 points are going, Cyprus and Moldova being the best examples. Nevertheless, I was happy to see a lot of surprising 12 points this year. Perhaps you were able to predict 90% of them – I was not, and that is what’s make the voting fun and exiting for me.
Fair or not, I don’t know. As you, I would normally define democracy as being the best foundation for fairness. But when Russia receives 12 points from Belarus five years in a row, and Turkey receives 12 points from both Netherlands and France four years in a row, I don’t know whether that equals fairness.
As you’ve earlier mentioned, huge representative juries would probably be a better solution to avoid biased votings – if they could work in practice, that is.
thanks for correcting a mistake in my calculation, I’ll come back to that in a minute.
In my post, I didn’t try to define “fairness” as that is a tricky term to use within a music contest. I tried to argue that the juries have made the voting less predictable. You don’t agree and I admit that predictablility is a subjective matter. Let me try to explain once again, why I - for my part - find the voting less predictable than in previous years:
Regarding the Belarussian votes, I couldn’t predict that their 12 points would go to Georgia this year. I feel convinced (I don’t know for certain, I just feel convinced) that if there had been 100 % televoting, these 12 points would’ve went to Russia as they did from 2004-2008. After all, it’s not (as you write) unlikely that Russia received 12 points from the televoters. A hypothetical example: RUS 12+0, GEO 10+7, UKR 6+10, GER 2+12, MOL 8+5, AZE 7+6 = Russia 5 points.
Regarding the Danish votes, I couldn’t predict that our 12 points would go to Ireland this year. I feel convinced that we would have given our top mark to Sweden, if there had been 100 % televoting. After all, we rewarded Sweden with 89 points in the finals from 1999 to 2008.
Regarding the Dutch votes, you’re right and I’m wrong. Netherlands only rewarded Turkey with 12 points in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2008 they gave ‘em 10 points. However, from 2009-2010 Turkey only received 8 points from the Netherlands despite the high placings of the songs. That’s for me a clear example that the voting has become less biased. I don’t think that it’s a question of Ducth people’s taste when songs like “Rimi rimi ley” and “Süper Star” gets 12 points, while “Düm tek tek” and “We could be the same” gets 8 points.
To sum up: As many others, I would like the voting to be much more transparent. After all, my examples are just an outsiders conviction and not facts. Just as your claim that the juries are bribed is a conviction.
As I wrote, the juries aren’t perfect. It’s still not hard to predict where many 12 points are going, Cyprus and Moldova being the best examples. Nevertheless, I was happy to see a lot of surprising 12 points this year. Perhaps you were able to predict 90% of them – I was not, and that is what’s make the voting fun and exiting for me.
Fair or not, I don’t know. As you, I would normally define democracy as being the best foundation for fairness. But when Russia receives 12 points from Belarus five years in a row, and Turkey receives 12 points from both Netherlands and France four years in a row, I don’t know whether that equals fairness.
As you’ve earlier mentioned, huge representative juries would probably be a better solution to avoid biased votings – if they could work in practice, that is.
AllThatJazz
Active member
- Joined
- December 21, 2010
- Posts
- 223
Mickey
Well-known member
Rybak also happened to have the best song in the contest and scored 8 or more points from almost every other country. I suppose you're going to tell me that Rybak also has an Israeli grandmother, a Slovenian uncle and a pet cat from Spain. Those are the only reasons those countries could have voted for him.
The UK gave precisely zero points to Romania this year. I didn't like the song. I didn't care that their singer was from England and no one else cared enough to give him any points. Unless they've had commercial success there, I don't believe in links between a performer's birthplace and that country's points.
Sabiondo
Well-known member
Greece & Cyprus exange points cause they bersides shaers music market , shares also their singers.
Bulgaria was give 12 points to Germany in 2008, cause one of the No Angels singers, was Bulgarian.
ESC 2006 Switzerland six4one group was composted for members from Sweden, Malta, B&H, Israel & one are German-´Portuguese blackground ... and all thorse countries members (exect Sweden) was vote to hims.
Mickey
Well-known member
You've ignored an important part of my argument. The Bulgarian girl in No Angels and the members of six4one were all already well known in their home countries. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of Rybak being a successful artist in Belarus (or anywhere) before he won ESC.
Of course, if Adele or Take That chose to represent someone else at ESC, I'd expect the UK voters to give them big marks. If it's just some guy who happened to be born here and then move away, that's a completely different story.
Good point Mickey. Ryback's Eastern origins certainly helped (as far as musical influences go), but he won because his song really appealed to absolutely everyone (I'm not fond of the song, but you can't deny it's really distinctive).
BTW, I just watched the ESC 2005 final in Kiev, on DVD. I thought the voting that year was quite interesting, and pretty fair actually. Switzerland in particular struck me as surprisingly popular (10 points from Belarus, and high marks from every Baltic country). Just my impression, do you think 2005 was a "fair" year (if there is any)? (I know I'm digressing, but this is linked to the jury issue IMO)
BTW, I just watched the ESC 2005 final in Kiev, on DVD. I thought the voting that year was quite interesting, and pretty fair actually. Switzerland in particular struck me as surprisingly popular (10 points from Belarus, and high marks from every Baltic country). Just my impression, do you think 2005 was a "fair" year (if there is any)? (I know I'm digressing, but this is linked to the jury issue IMO)
Sabiondo
Well-known member
The Vanilla Ninja Ninja actually was so popular for that time in Belarus.
Last edited:
Apart from the few steady vice-versa-connections, namely Cyprus<–>Greece, Azerbaijan<–>Turkey, Italy<–>San Marino(?), whose forseeability does not vary in televoting and 'combined results' likewise, there is no predictable 12 points score either when it comes to the public. Although it is supposable they stay in a greater 'bloc' (keep in my mind: there have been various exceptions) it is impossible to appoint the exact country that will be awarded with it before knowing the entries or even overall voting trends. As higher-voted Georgia belongs to the same 'political bloc' as Belarus or Russia I fail to see a moral difference or a larger surprise.
Given the split points by country released for the 2009 contest, there has not been one case in that the 12 points from televoting were diminished to five or less points in the 'combined voting'. Nor occured this in any revealed split for 2010 or 2011. Just once the televoting favourite received 6 points, on all other occasions at least 7 points. In addition we do not even know BTRC gave nil points. Thus based on facts it can be considered as unlikely (not mathematically excluded).
Popular was a typical nordic Pop schlager that won the international full televoting, not counting back up juries, so it was plausible if it topped the Danish one, too. Giving not the 12 rather seems incredible to me.
It indeed is not because Düm tek tek also gained the people's 12.
I cannot claim if they are bribed or not and I have not done it. It is clear and officially stated they do assert foreign interests and it is a fact EBU and 95% of the broadcasters do hide the results since 2010.
Still I would like to know the lots of surprising 12 points for you as for me and other observers the voting looked quite 'blocish' this year. Probably the neighbourish voting among western contestants was unwonted.
For me, an absolute meaningless and intransparent can hardly bring fun and excitement. Probably I do take it too serious? However, many agree on that without voting ESC is a farce.
I supported this idea earlier. Seeing the broadcasters's behaviour (expetiated sveral times) these days not any direct influence is acceptable IMHO.
A good example people vote for close music, not countries.
AllThatJazz
Active member
- Joined
- December 21, 2010
- Posts
- 223
@ CC92
Thanks for answering once again, I see your point regarding the hidden results. As a matter of fact, I wrote the Danish broadcaster last year (and the year before that) asking why they didn't publish the full results - as they've done for several years in Sweden. Never got a saitisfying answer, though.
In the case of predictability, we obviously disagree. But I would like to know more about thoughts regarding the voters: If EBU skip the juries, should they return to 100% televoting - with the possibility of introducing limited votes per phone? What would be the best solution, according to you?
Thanks for answering once again, I see your point regarding the hidden results. As a matter of fact, I wrote the Danish broadcaster last year (and the year before that) asking why they didn't publish the full results - as they've done for several years in Sweden. Never got a saitisfying answer, though.
In the case of predictability, we obviously disagree. But I would like to know more about thoughts regarding the voters: If EBU skip the juries, should they return to 100% televoting - with the possibility of introducing limited votes per phone? What would be the best solution, according to you?
Last edited:
3 Possibilities:
1st: Get rid of the Juries, and introduce a new Pointssystem were f.e. the Top15 instead of the Top10 gets Points. This reduces Diaspora- and political Voting the most.
2nd: Keep the System but increace the Size of the Juries to 10-15
3rd: Keep the 5-headed Juries but reduce their Power to 33%.
1st: Get rid of the Juries, and introduce a new Pointssystem were f.e. the Top15 instead of the Top10 gets Points. This reduces Diaspora- and political Voting the most.
2nd: Keep the System but increace the Size of the Juries to 10-15
3rd: Keep the 5-headed Juries but reduce their Power to 33%.