Your Ideal Votingsystem for 2019

[Realest]

Lets Discuss how the Voting (including the Presentation) should be for 2019, if it should be 100% Juryvoting, 100% Televoting, 50/50, 75/25 etc.. or if and how the Jury- or Televoting should be changed.

 

[EDC0708]

For me, i would go for 100% televoting, since I grew up with Eurovision during the 100% televoting era. I am personally more interested to see how a nation voted, than how five people in a room ranked the songs. It is still flawed with diaspora and neighbour voting, but not as flawed as the jury voting system.

 

[Pawhlen]

For me, i would go for 100% televoting, since I grew up with Eurovision during the 100% televoting era. I am personally more interested to see how a nation voted, than how five people in a room ranked the songs. It is still flawed with diaspora and neighbour voting, but not as flawed as the jury voting system.

It´s quite ironic that this year it was more neighbour and diaspora votes in the televoting rather than with juries.

But to answer the question to this thread, whatever system that hurt us the most is probably what all Sweden-haters wants

 

[lolita]

Televote was made in the end of 90s, always the juries were the ones deciding the winner before that, it is not nothing new. I would like it to stay half-half, because public vote for cheap and trashy songs and for show, too often, and many good songs got hurt. Juries recognize quality. We have many examples Pastora Soler, Nina Zilli, etc, great songs that public sadly haven't recognized. Thanks that juries saved them.

 

[Realest]

I said it in another Thread.. I would go back to the 100% Televoting but not in the Recent Form. The 12 Points-System unfairly advantages Countries who (nearly) completely Rely on Diasporavotes while getting ignored from most/all of the Non-Diasporacountries. I would suggest a 20 Points-System [20,18,16,14,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1] which of Course doesnt prevent/delete Diasporavoting, but reduces it. The Points from 1-10 should be shown on the screen and the Spokespersons should read out loud the 12,14,16,18 and 20 Points. This System is mathematically more just, since it reflects the Reality more in the Table-Midfield and Bottom and reduces the Diaspora-effect. Also its very easy to understand for Casual-Viewers. These would be the Results of 2018 if we used this System:

I will add the Semi-Results of this System soon.

E: Here they are:



There is a clear Tendence, that the Diaspora-Influence can be reduced and that guaranteed Points affect the Scoreboard less than with the 12 Points System. Especially in Semi2 where would be 10th while and fell down to 11th and 12th Place.

 

[Lindon]

I wouldn't change the voting system but the award system. You have one country winning the juries, one winning the televotes and one overall winner. Sometimes you have three different winning countries, sometimes you have only two and seldom one, who is getting all three awards The overall winner is the next host country. Crazy idea.

 

[lolita]

I wouldn't change the voting system but the award system. You have one country winning the juries, one winning the televotes and one overall winner. Sometimes you have three different winning countries, sometimes you have only two and seldom one, who is getting all three awards The overall winner is the next host country. Crazy idea.

Hahah, I actually like your crazy idea, it sounds interesting!

 

[A-lister]

Televote was made in the end of 90s, always the juries were the ones deciding the winner before that, it is not nothing new. I would like it to stay half-half, because public vote for cheap and trashy songs and for show, too often, and many good songs got hurt. Juries recognize quality. We have many examples Pastora Soler, Nina Zilli, etc, great songs that public sadly haven't recognized. Thanks that juries saved them.

I'd say juries more often go for trash, but then again if someone automatically define "trash" as a country actually putting effort in the show (which shouldn't be looked down at) then yeah...

Juries are safe, backwards and vote against anything that goes against some sort of western, standard Pop norm... and they aren't less political or biased than the televoters either... but hey ho

 

[lolita]

I'd say juries more often go for trash, but then again if someone automatically define "trash" as a country actually putting effort in the show (which shouldn't be looked down at) then yeah...

Juries are safe, backwards and vote against anything that goes against some some of western, standard Pop norm... and they aren't less political or biased than the televoters either... but hey ho

For me, both televoting and juries have pros and cons, both sides have flaws. They (EBU) are trying every year to improve this, but I don't know what is better option. Most fair seems for now to have both of them, kinda, but we will see, voting system changes every few years, we will see what is next. Maybe juries 30%, voters 70%.

 

[A-lister]

For me, both televoting and juries have pros and cons, both sides have flaws. They (EBU) are trying every year to improve this, but I don't know what is better option. Most fair seems for now to have both of them, kinda, but we will see, voting system changes every few years, we will see what is next. Maybe juries 30%, voters 70%.

Very true, but except for the annual diaspora votes (that effect the outcome to some extent sure, but not the overall), I think televoters have proven that they are far more open minded and living more in the "now" than juries.

But it's true, both groups have pos and cons and flaws, so I think giving the televoters a higher percentage could be a solution.

 

[A-lister]

I said it in another Thread.. I would go back to the 100% Televoting but not in the Recent Form. The 12 Points-System unfairly advantages Countries who (nearly) completely Rely on Diasporavotes while getting ignored from most/all of the Non-Diasporacountries. I would suggest a 20 Points-System [20,18,16,14,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1] which of Course doesnt prevent/delete Diasporavoting, but reduces it. The Points from 1-10 should be shown on the screen and the Spokespersons should read out loud the 12,14,16,18 and 20 Points. This System is mathematically more just, since it reflects the Reality more in the Table-Midfield and Bottom and reduces the Diaspora-effect. Also its very easy to understand for Casual-Viewers. These would be the Results of 2018 if we used this System:

I will add the Semi-Results of this System soon.

E: Here they are:



There is a clear Tendence, that the Diaspora-Influence can be reduced and that guaranteed Points affect the Scoreboard less than with the 12 Points System. Especially in Semi2 where would be 10th while and fell down to 11th and 12th Place.

Interesting, and the results look pretty fair as well!

 

[Pawhlen]

I highly doubt EBU will change the voting system again in near future, many tv-stations need to show disgrace with current system to even make EBU consider a new voting system (it took 41 years before a bigger change in the voting system came)The fans opinions are not that important to EBU, they will only listen if the tv-stations are complaining

 

[lolita]

I highly doubt EBU will change the voting system again in near future, many tv-stations need to show disgrace with current system to even make EBU consider a new voting system (it took 41 years before a bigger change in the voting system came)The fans opinions are not that important to EBU, they will only listen if the tv-stations are complaining

And fans will always find a way to be divas who complain about any kind of voting system, even if juries will be gone in far future, mark my words if that happens!

 

[Chorizo]

I would keep the 50/50 split. Obviously, the public needs to be able to vote and cannot be marginalized. At the same time, the viewers often vote for an entry for reasons that have nothing to do with the song, making juries a necessity if Eurovision is meant to be a song contest. All too often the televoters reward over-the-top staging, being funny, and being crazy instead of voting for what they genuinely consider the best song. Last but not least they often just vote for the country instead of the song. Therefore, the public vote needs to be balanced by a jury. Eurovision shouldn't just be an attention-whoring contest that you can win by providing the weirdest three minutes of the night. It would be important, however, to reform the juries because the current system often doesn't lead to a professional jury vote.

Having only a public vote means that the quality of the song doesn't matter and that entertaining people and drawing attention is all that counts. Those that prefer Eurovision to be silly entertainment and a circus seem to favor the public vote. They tend to perceive the juries as party poopers when they dare to vote for a good composition instead of some tacky and campy trash that this type of fan might favor. The same people are prone to claim that the juries giving fewer points to a song than the televoters is injustice while the televoters giving more points is always fair. There are also those who claim that all songs are equality valid and that there is no objective way to assess the quality of a song. Therefore, whatever the public votes for would be the deserved winner. I wonder if those people think Euro Neuro would have been as good of a winner as Euphoria in 2012, if enough people had voted for it. If you agree that Eurovision is indeed a song contest and that some songs are better than others, you need to support the juries because the televoters often don't care about quality. If Eurovision is just a joke contest, then a 100% televote is more acceptable but then the rampant diaspora and neighbor voting of the 2000s would be back and the musical quality would decline sharply. Considering how much the fans like to discuss the quality of the songs ahead of the contest, I think the majority should be happy there's a jury.

I would make the following reforms to the jury system:
1) The number of jury members should be increased. Seven jurors would be a good start. The number could be adjusted later.
2) The EBU should have a notary present at all broadcasters during the jury voting to prevent improper behavior as exposed in the Russian jury scandal.
3) Only people who have professional experience in fields like composing and producing music should be eligible as jury members. Currently being good at karaoke (e.g. having performed on The Voice or X Factor) is sufficient to be a jury member, yet being able to sing a song isn't sufficient qualification to judge songs professionally.
4) There need to be better and strict jury criteria comparable to how athletes are judged in various sports. The jurors should not vote just according to their taste but according to these criteria. The juries should be instructed to evaluate only the quality of the song and not to support a song because of a political message or because it's from a certain country. The juries should be instructed to vote for songs that can be successful outside the contest, for example on the radio.
5) The juries should make notes explaining their ranking. If it's too complicated to do it for all songs, they should at least state the reasons for choosing their top 3 and bottom 3 and write down based on which criteria the chosen songs are best and worst. Explaining why number 10 is better than number 11 (in the current system) would make sense too.
6) The juries should first listen to the studio versions of the songs and rank the entries based on the audio version only. Later they should make a second ranking based on the live performances. Both rankings should contribute 50% to the jury ranking. This would lead to more points for good songs and fewer points for weak songs that profit from good staging. Songs that can do good outside the contest would profit too because songs that work on a regular playlist or that can be played on the radio would profit while circus acts that only work on the stage would get fewer points. It would also prevent great songs with hit potential to be severely punished by the juries because of the live vocals. Live vocals matter but if a song can be a hit on the radio that should matter more than perfect live vocals during one show. It's not a karaoke contest. Eurovision is about original songs.

In the past I have proposed a system to limit the influence of political neighbor voting and the diaspora vote. I think giving points to more countries, like Realest suggested, might indeed be the best way to achieve this. A system that automatically adjusts the results as previously suggested by me might be better at filtering out the political votes but it would be met with heavy opposition, it would be less transparent and not easily understood, and it could lead to fewer calls and therefore make the contest less profitable. I'm not sure which number of points would work best for the top vote but the approach to give points to more countries is a good compromise that would make the voting fairer.

The presentation:
The current split presentation is entertaining and should be kept but the top 3 countries should be named again during the classical voting sequence. Currently the jury voting is too quick and superficial. Putting the public vote first is an option but it would lead to the diaspora dominating the top votes of many countries every year while the juries seemingly changing the outcome of the public vote at the end of the show would be perceived badly by the viewers, so I think it's better to start with the juries. The jury vote would further improve with my proposed changes making it more interesting and more professional justifying giving more time to it. At the same time, scrutiny of the jury vote is important, which is why it should be shown in detail. The televoters voting unprofessionally cannot be helped anyway.

 

[lolita]

I would keep the 50/50 split. Obviously, the public needs to be able to vote and cannot be marginalized. At the same time, the viewers often vote for an entry for reasons that have nothing to do with the song, making juries a necessity if Eurovision is meant to be a song contest. All too often the televoters reward over-the-top staging, being funny, and being crazy instead of voting for what they genuinely consider the best song. Last but not least they often just vote for the country instead of the song. Therefore, the public vote needs to be balanced by a jury. Eurovision shouldn't just be an attention-whoring contest that you can win by providing the weirdest three minutes of the night. It would be important, however, to reform the juries because the current system often doesn't lead to a professional jury vote.

Having only a public vote means that the quality of the song doesn't matter and that entertaining people and drawing attention is all that counts. Those that prefer Eurovision to be silly entertainment and a circus seem to favor the public vote. They tend to perceive the juries as party poopers when they dare to vote for a good composition instead of some tacky and campy trash that this type of fan might favor. The same people are prone to claim that the juries giving fewer points to a song than the televoters is injustice while the televoters giving more points is always fair. There are also those who claim that all songs are equality valid and that there is no objective way to assess the quality of a song. Therefore, whatever the public votes for would be the deserved winner. I wonder if those people think Euro Neuro would have been as good of a winner as Euphoria in 2012, if enough people had voted for it. If you agree that Eurovision is indeed a song contest and that some songs are better than others, you need to support the juries because the televoters often don't care about quality. If Eurovision is just a joke contest, then a 100% televote is more acceptable but then the rampant diaspora and neighbor voting of the 2000s would be back and the musical quality would decline sharply. Considering how much the fans like to discuss the quality of the songs ahead of the contest, I think the majority should be happy there's a jury.

I would make the following reforms to the jury system:
1) The number of jury members should be increased. Seven jurors would be a good start. The number could be adjusted later.
2) The EBU should have a notary present at all broadcasters during the jury voting to prevent improper behavior as exposed in the Russian jury scandal.
3) Only people who have professional experience in fields like composing and producing music should be eligible as jury members. Currently being good at karaoke (e.g. having performed on The Voice or X Factor) is sufficient to be a jury member, yet being able to sing a song isn't sufficient qualification to judge songs professionally.
4) There need to be better and strict jury criteria comparable to how athletes are judged in various sports. The jurors should not vote just according to their taste but according to these criteria. The juries should be instructed to evaluate only the quality of the song and not to support a song because of a political message or because it's from a certain country. The juries should be instructed to vote for songs that can be successful outside the contest, for example on the radio.
5) The juries should make notes explaining their ranking. If it's too complicated to do it for all songs, they should at least state the reasons for choosing their top 3 and bottom 3 and write down based on which criteria the chosen songs are best and worst. Explaining why number 10 is better than number 11 (in the current system) would make sense too.
6) The juries should first listen to the studio versions of the songs and rank the entries based on the audio version only. Later they should make a second ranking based on the live performances. Both rankings should contribute 50% to the jury ranking. This would lead to more points for good songs and fewer points for weak songs that profit from good staging. Songs that can do good outside the contest would profit too because songs that work on a regular playlist or that can be played on the radio would profit while circus acts that only work on the stage would get fewer points. It would also prevent great songs with hit potential to be severely punished by the juries because of the live vocals. Live vocals matter but if a song can be a hit on the radio that should matter more than perfect live vocals during one show. It's not a karaoke contest. Eurovision is about original songs.

In the past I have proposed a system to limit the influence of political neighbor voting and the diaspora vote. I think giving points to more countries, like Realest suggested, might indeed be the best way to achieve this. A system that automatically adjusts the results as previously suggested by me might be better at filtering out the political votes but it would be met with heavy opposition, it would be less transparent and not easily understood, and it could lead to fewer calls and therefore make the contest less profitable. I'm not sure which number of points would work best for the top vote but the approach to give points to more countries is a good compromise that would make the voting fairer.

The presentation:
The current split presentation is entertaining and should be kept but the top 3 countries should be named again during the classical voting sequence. Currently the jury voting is too quick and superficial. Putting the public vote first is an option but it would lead to the diaspora dominating the top votes of many countries every year while the juries seemingly changing the outcome of the public vote at the end of the show would be perceived badly by the viewers, so I think it's better to start with the juries. The jury vote would further improve with my proposed changes making it more interesting and more professional justifying giving more time to it. At the same time, scrutiny of the jury vote is important, which is why it should be shown in detail. The televoters voting unprofessionally cannot be helped anyway.

xgood You are totally right, in the past decade we had many cheap and trashy songs at Eurovision, in a fact that I should whole decade 2000-2010 call "Trash decade", or "Too funny decade", but in wrong way funny. When juries arrived, quality of the songs and whole contest went few levels higher, quality increased a lot. Number of cheap, awful, joke entries decreased totally, and we had such a strong final this year, it was amazing to see, there were literally no bad song, objectively, whether we like some songs or don't. I don't know how people are in denial and don't see it. And I also stated that quality winner must be so much strong song and performance with great quality, that will appeal to both juries and televoters. Oh, and I love your jury reform suggestion, and I also love televoting suggestion made by [MENTION=15870]Realest[/MENTION], it would be more fair televoting.

 

[Realest]

In the past I have proposed a system to limit the influence of political neighbor voting and the diaspora vote.

[MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION] where?

 

[Hele.]

While I appreciate job that jury did on eurovision, I think their influence is way too strong and vulnerable to manipulation. We had ton of examples where we could see in the end it is in big part about lobbying, trading votes etc. I surely would reduce their influence on 75/25 or at least 66,67/33,33...or make some combination of their influence in SFs (I might would accept 50/50 in SFs if final would be televoting 100%). But then again, not sure if it would be good for final. Anyhow, we only see publicly few examples here and there of how it is lot about manipulations but what we do not see?
I would say, "expertise" of those music "professionals" is very questionable.

 

[lolita]

While I appreciate job that jury did on eurovision, I think their influence is way too strong and vulnerable to manipulation. We had ton of examples where we could see in the end it is in big part about lobbying, trading votes etc. I surely would reduce their influence on 75/25 or at least 66,67/33,33...or make some combination of their influence in SFs (I might would accept 50/50 in SFs if final would be televoting 100%). But then again, not sure if it would be good for final. Anyhow, we only see publicly few examples here and there of how it is lot about manipulations but what we do not see?
I would say, "expertise" of those music "professionals" is very questionable.

I agree with part in [MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION]'s post, in which he has said that juries should be producers and highly educated musicians, and not karaoke, Voice and X Factor singers ( and we have them in jury, a lot of them, most of the singers are not even educated professionaly), that basically don't know lot about quality and music overall.

 

[Lindon]

We had ton of examples where we could see in the end it is in big part about lobbying, trading votes etc.

Really ? Proven examples?

 

[Hele.]

I agree with part in @<b><a href="http://escunited.com/forum/member.php?u=13781" target="_blank">Chorizo</a></b>'s post, in which he has said that juries should be producers and highly educated musicians, and not karaoke, Voice and X Factor singers ( and we have them in jury, a lot of them, most of the singers are not even educated professionaly), that basically don't know lot about quality and music overall.

I agree.
Btw, as you are from Serbia, you will understand this video where Balkanika's singer talks about lobbying at esc. I posted here already in other thread but nobody reacted (as probably nobody understands) I would like to hear your (and everybody who understands) opinion on this and jury influence (especially from around 3 minutes)