Your Ideal Votingsystem for 2019

[Lindon]

[MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION] perfect!

 

[Hele.]

Really ? Proven examples?

I just post video above where Balkanika's singer makes statement that he heard opened jury trading talks in Lisbon.

You forgot about this?
https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/10/2016-eurovision-favourites-russia-in-jury-voting-scandal-5872274/

 

[Lindon]

[MENTION=7006]Hele.[/MENTION] I only believe my own conspiracy theories

 

[Chorizo]

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

I think that was in the Russian thread when we were discussing the impact of the diaspora but what I said would never be implemented. I was talking about automatically adjusting the votes based on voting patterns to neutralize the diaspora vote. What you said is a good compromise that could be easily implemented and nobody could really argue against it, so I support your idea. It would make voting fairer for everyone.

 

[Hele.]

[MENTION=7006]Hele.[/MENTION] I only believe my own conspiracy theories

Of course. You believe in what you want.

I believe in what I want as well. And I do believe everybody is trying to do as best as it can.
Now I just remembered few things on first. This Russian jury member in 2016 acted like that and video was found so we all found about. But you think there is no other single person among 200+ persons that has similar approach to giving marks in jury?
I found it with difficulties, one blatantly shameless statement, directly to camera, of Nina Badrić (Croatia 2012). Interview is on Croatian, before her trip to Baku in 2012. I will just translate you most interesting part but full interview is here: https://eurosong.hr/nina-badric-otputovala-u-baku-odgovara-mi-sto-sam-outsider-po-kladionicama/

"...Druga stvar, nemojmo se zavaravati i ne tvrditi da lobiranje nije važno. Izuzetno je važno. Dogovoriti neke glasove od samog početka sa zemljama s kojima to možeš jer je u konačno glasovanje uključen i žiri i mislim da tu nije ništa loše..."

"...Another thing, let's not be fooled and do not argue that lobbying is not important. It is extremely important. Setting up some votes from the very beginning with the countries with whom you can do it because the jury is included in the voting as well and I think there is nothing wrong with it..."

What is more scandalous, she said this shamelessly in the interview.

As well, I remember some Montenegrin scandal few years ago too...

 

[Realest]

Well, she was right. There was definitely something wrong with the Juryvotes from and in the Semifinal.
I also still believe that and s Juries exchanged 12 Points in the Final, although there was definitely no reason musicwise if were honest. And I cant trust anyway.

 

[Chorizo]

I just post video above where Balkanika's singer makes statement that he heard opened jury trading talks in Lisbon.

You forgot about this?
https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/10/2016-eurovision-favourites-russia-in-jury-voting-scandal-5872274/

That's the Russian jury scandal I mentioned.

That's how the EBU claims the voting happens:

 

[lolita]

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)

I talked about it in Rigged Juries thread, I am lazy to type everything now. I don't think it is done in that way they described, but more secretly, if it is done.
http://escunited.com/forum/threads/17580-New-Jury-Rigging-Allegations To me, they sounded ridiculous and salty, even though I appreciate them as artists, they are all so talented. I don't say juries are innocent, but I think it would be done more privately, during phone talk, receiving some istructions from EBU in some other secret way, and there are thousands of ways to do it, and not some man in black walking around dressed as Grim Reaper. And juries are not even present in the Arena, if they are, usually present there, I would probably believe to Mladen.

 

[Lindon]

That's how the EBU claims the voting happens:

The EBU video gave me just another idea. The juries votes are presented first. Then starts the 15 Minutes of televoting to influence the known jury result. Just like in "Strictly Come Dancing"

 

[Realest]

The EBU video gave me just another idea. The juries votes are presented first. Then starts the 15 Minutes of televoting to influence the known jury result. Just like in "Strictly Come Dancing"

Not sure if this is a good Idea. In the End we will have the case like 2015 where the Top10 has around 90% of all the Votes and the Bottom16 the Remaining 10% because everyone focuses on the Victory.

 

[Lindon]

[MENTION=15870]Realest[/MENTION] Yes, but at the same time it would minimize the complained differences. You can't have it all. The jury result would be a kind of advice. Eventually it would lead to more phone calls, when there is a great opposition to the jury result.
There are many fitting aspects. The system is a public broadcaster invention and tested in more than 30 countries.

 

[Alaska49]

i see two very simple alternatives:

a) actually go through with the damn jury regulations. isolate them before rehearsals like they'd go on big brother. don't reveal the jurors to the public before that. don't even let a juror know who the other jurors for their own country are. make them vote with no information other than their own opinion. and if ebu does have guidelines directing them to reward certain types on entries, make those guidelines reward originality and ethnicity. i wouldn't oppose not even using music professionals, and using press people instead. the music industry world is not that big and people have connections that shouldn't be used here.

i would also want them to no longer rank all entries and just pick a top 10 each, or even better, have each juror distribute 20 votes like a televoter, but that's optional. the big part is putting a leash on them.

b) recognize juries cannot be controlled and get rid of them entirely and trust the televoters. they did not even reward too much trash last decade, if you see the entries who made top 10 they were for the most part competent and legit. the televote is even more trustworthy now and probably vote more critically than juries lol. power to the people oh peepee!!!

 

[ag89]

I like the current system, but the EBU will have to work more with explaining the juries what their role is.

 

[Lindon]

Chorizo's suggestions is the best way to go. Maybe to add, if possible, the head of one jury shall not have a well known previous tense relationship with one of the participants like the German one in 2014, because a notary can't control what was said amongst the jury members before the evaluations of the entries. A charismatic head of the jury may have the ability to influence younger jury members in a negative way. Negativity should have no place in the ESC.

 

[FilipFromSweden]

Juries are safe, backwards and vote against anything that goes against some sort of western, standard Pop norm...

2011: ranks Italy as 1st
2012: ranks Serbia as 2nd and Albania as 3rd
2016: ranks Ukraine as 2nd
2017: ranks Portugal as 1st
2018: ranks Israel as 3rd

I think it's a bit narrow-minded of you to say that juries only vote for western standard pop

 

[Himan]

Ideal Votingsystem? Anyone can vote only once via internet for free

 

[Pawhlen]

Ideal Votingsystem? Anyone can vote only once via internet for free

If they use decent servers, yes, but remember JESC 2014 and 2017, first time it broke down complete and last year it crashed during the broadcast because of the heavy pressure. If the servers have real problems with the pressure during JESC, how are they suppose to handle such voting during ESC?


[MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION] send a e-mail to EBU with that text, if it manages to reach the reference group, it could well be changes made

 

[Lindon]

[MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION] send a e-mail to EBU with that text, if it manages to reach the reference group, it could well be changes made

The suggestions of [MENTION=13781]Chorizo[/MENTION] are so thoughtful, reasonable and balanced, maybe it would make a great petition at change.org too.

 

[Chorizo]

The EBU video gave me just another idea. The juries votes are presented first. Then starts the 15 Minutes of televoting to influence the known jury result. Just like in "Strictly Come Dancing"

This voting system sounds quite interesting. I wonder how applying it would influence the outcome. Since only a few countries are still likely to win after the jury vote, most votes would probably go to them. So the televoters might be tempted to pick one of the jury favorites and many viewers might also change their opinion about some songs because a lot of people are sheep. This year, the televoters would have surely given more points to Austria and Sweden if this system had been in use and the supporters of Israel and Cyprus might have voted for the country they prefer in even larger numbers. Fans of entries too weak to win at this point, including France, might have preferred to vote for one of the jury favorites instead. I would not mind trying out this system to see how the audience likes it. It could make it harder for bad entries to get a lot of support in the televote while making it more likely that the jury favorite preferred by the viewers wins. Since this system would give more power to the juries by allowing them to influence the televote to a certain degree, I would only support this system, if the way the juries work is reformed as suggested by me.

 

[Alaska49]

also, to be honest, if juries are here to stay i think we might have to retire the current system and go back to how it was from 2009 to 2012. exposing the jury results for all the watchers have caused more negative feelings about their presence than ever before, specially as people see songs they didn't give a shit about near the top. 2011 even had similar results to this year (a big jury favourite the public barely even voted for, big televote favourites being buried by juries, an overall sense of disagreement) and the winner wasn't as popular as netta is, and yet the outrage wasn't that big simply because people only saw the end result. only big fans went after the split results and saw the dissonance.

the current system is a lot better numerically because every top 10 placement mattere, but the impact on perception may make that not worth it. i am a big fan and even i can recognize my contempt of the juries might have increased just because of the perception we get at the grand final. i was probably more outraged this year than in 2015 and 2015 was objectively the worst most shameful jury showing of all times (and i am not even talking about mans i love him) and this year was just the usual "why on earth are they so boring" problems. maybe we just shouldn't see them impact our results so directly.