People keep going on about televoting winners usually winning instead of jury winners but there's a big different guys.
The jury only consists of 5 people, often representing the same power (well, more actually, since they are ranked) than up to millions, depending on the country. Is it really fair that the people who all pay money to vote for their favourite act should be considered less important than the jury, which consists of 5 so called "professionals" who half the time rarely seem that professional to be honest?
I think it's ridiculous that Sweden only came THIRD in the televoting, yet won this year. Italy really should've won, I didn't care for Italy's act initally, I did prefer it over Sweden but I preferred Russia's actually. Before people complain disapora, really, does Italy actually have that much friendly bias? They didn't seem to get any last year..and I'd argue big time that Russia's massive amount of points has nothing to do with it being Russia, since Russia got high points from many countries who, to be honest, don't really like Russia all too much.
Apparently the jury votes worked differently before until recently? If the old method was more fair we should go to that. In general the jury and televoting agree, maybe we should have a safenet for the winner of the televoting (I'd argue the winner is *never* the winner because of country bias, I agree that mid spots can be horrible country bias, like Albania this year possibly, but people in general will vote for the song they love, not the country. As shown by Italy doing badly last year, but great this year, etc), so that the winner of the televoting always wins the whole thing, so it feels more like people's votes matter, meaning that the dispora for the high-mid range acts are lessed *a bit* by the juries (as juries have been shown to be pretty biased too), whilst the winner is still the one the people of Europe chose. I've yet to think of a year where if the televoting winner won that people would complain.
fuckingvision