Your Ideal Votingsystem for 2019

[Lindon]

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.

Of course your suggestions must be implemented first before taking such a radical step. I totally agree.

 

[EDC0708]

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"

The Second Eurovision Dance Contest in 2008 (which was essentially a spin off of both ESC and Strictly) used that method, they had a panel of judges from four non-participating countries who scored after each performance, with points equating to around 20% of the total (slightly more as Spain pulled out at the last minute) awarded to the juries overall top 10, and then televoting opened. This worked really well in EDC, when there were only 14 participants, but might be more of a challenge in an ESC final with 26 countries taking part.

 

[Lindon]

Interesting, I did not know that. It would disturb the flow of the show if a rating is given right after each performance. I would not recommend that part in any case. To find enough countries which do not participate and do the voting would also be difficult, unless only those vote who have already failed in the semifinals. That would take away the fun for the whole thing.
More important than these considerations are the implementations of Chorizo's suggestions anyway. To quote Norway: " Step one, ...

 

[Chorizo]

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

Thanks for your support.

[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

I wish it were that easy. You seem quite optimistic but many of the flaws only exist because it makes things cheaper and easier for the EBU and the broadcasters. The EBU must surely be aware that having a larger jury with stricter criteria would be better and that their current definition of a music professional allows karaoke singers who just vote according to their own taste to be jury members.

Changes that would cost money and make things more difficult will only happen, if the broadcasters demand it or if there is public pressure. The general audience doesn't care enough about these things and Eurovision fans are a tiny part of the audience with different ideas about how to change things, so ideas from the fandom about changing the voting rules don't carry much weight.

The EBU is aware of the Russian voting scandal, which happened after they talked about notaries, so they should know that instructing the broadcasters on what to do is not enough and that they would have to send their own notaries in order to ensure a legitimate jury result.

The latter half of my suggestions at least wouldn't make things much more expensive or difficult for the EBU or the broadcasters, so maybe there is a slight chance of changes in this direction. What they currently do, is still cheaper and easier for them, though.

The current system only requires the jurors to give all songs in the contest a random number to create a ranking. When a Danish jury member, who didn't understand the voting procedure, handed in her list in the wrong order in 2016, nobody noticed the mistake until after the show because these rankings are so random and don't include any commentary. If the jurors had to add a few explanations, it would certainly help validate the voting and further expose juries from countries that tend to give the same top points each year or that tend to put a certain neighboring country last every year. In the current system, you could randomly fill in the numbers from 1 to 25 on the ranking sheet and hand it in as your jury vote without having listened to a single song and nobody would question your ranking because random numbers are all it takes as proven by the Danish juror. The current rules look like they were made by people who are either naive, ignorant or who simply don't care.

Having the jurors evaluate the studio version as well only makes sense, if you want to focus on good songs winning the contest. If you only see Eurovision as an entertainment show on TV and a singular annual event, this might not matter to you that much. I think having the jurors only judge the jury final is an ideological decision by the EBU and highlights that Eurovision is just an entertainment show for them.

If the EBU were interested in changes like those I've proposed, surely something would have already happened after all those years, since many of the changes I proposed are too obvious to assume that the EBU just didn't think of doing it like that.

I think they would turn down giving points to more countries because the douze points are a tradition and a fairer system with more countries receiving points would probably not change the winner but just make it fairer for the rest of the countries. The current presentation of the points shows that they only care about presenting the winner.

Anyway, I would really like someone who is in charge at the EBU to explain why they don't handle things differently and why they prefer their current system over what I have proposed.

 

[Pawhlen]

I guess it´s all comes down to pure lazyness among EBU, they don´t act unless the tv-stations complains or if it had any impact on the final result (which probably explains why the Danish jurymember fucked up ranking list didn´t got changed into the correct one afterwards since it didn´t affect the final results, imagine if that error would have maid winning by less than 12p)

The juries should consist of at LEAST 15-20 people, Could they manage that during three decades, then that shouldn´t be a problem now either

 

[Chorizo]

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.

People are unhappy when the results are different from their personal ranking, no matter if the other televoters or the juries voted differently. Your own vote being part of the televote means that you won't propose getting rid of the televote when you disagree with it because that would result in being disenfranchised yourself. Therefore, the only part of the current system an unhappy viewer is likely to propose to abolish is the juries. Lots of people disagree with the result of the televote as well. The fact that this doesn't lead to significant demands to abolish the televote doesn't mean that people are generally happier with the outcome of the televote than they are with the jury ranking. You don't need the support of the majority of the audience to win a 26 horse race. More likely than not, the majority votes for a different song than the winner of the televote every single year. Making drama about the juries while acting like the winner of the televote is super popular and the legitimate winner supported by the majority of the people is disingenuous. The winner of the televote is usually the favorite of the largest minority, not the favorite of the majority.

 

[Alaska49]

your post made no sense with what i said or just like in general but you can keep going off i guess

i am not european and i don't have a vote, i am just against the current idea of juries because it's what makes sense to me for the good of the contest; the fact it seems to bother almost exclusively citizens from this year's jury top 2 only encourages me to stand my ground lol

 

[FreeFair]

In a world where I was the Supreme Glorious Leader of Eurovision,I'd implement a system of 100% public juries of regular Eurovison viewers (or 100 allowed for countries will less than 1 million population, but countries with big fanbases like Iceland & Luxembourg would always reach 200). Jurors could apply & be paid 200 euros (plus transport costs) each to watch both the jury & live finals in a cinema & complete an online form on which they would each give 1-8, 10 & 12 points to their favourite songs. The Grand final viewing would only be to make optional alterations to their initial scoring.
Such juries would be too large to bribe. On the other hand, this may be expensive to set up.
Here is how it would work, with demographics numbers approximating typical ESC viewers.
34 Females aged 16-25
34 Males aged 16-25
33 Females aged 25-45
33 Males aged 25-45
33 Females aged 45+
33 Males aged 45+
Also, Non Participating EBU members that screen the contest live should be allowed to vote. I want to see who Luxembourgers and Slovakians vote for.

 

[Lindon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I recall it correctly in the days of jury voting only, back in the 70s and 80s, the juries had besides experts also normal, regular people with no music expertise as members.

 

[Chorizo]

your post made no sense with what i said or just like in general but you can keep going off i guess

i am not european and i don't have a vote, i am just against the current idea of juries because it's what makes sense to me for the good of the contest; the fact it seems to bother almost exclusively citizens from this year's jury top 2 only encourages me to stand my ground lol

You want a crazy circus contest. I get it.

 

[LalehForWD]

I want things to remain exactly as they are now

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

100% jury voting.

 

[Alaska49]

100% jury voting.

even after they put two entire male humans over netta??? what about your PRINCIPLES

 

[Chorizo]

100% jury voting.

Would men be allowed on the juries?

Don't forget the jury criteria: Only female singers should be allowed to be in the top 10.

 

[GianlucaTomoe]

even after they put two entire male humans over netta??? what about your PRINCIPLES

Would men be allowed on the juries?

Don't forget the jury criteria: Only female singers should be allowed to be in the top 10.

You both are right, so I make a little correction: 50% jury voting and 50% Gianluca voting.

 

[Realest]

We cant get rid of Televoting, we need the TV to keep Malta away from the Final with their Garbage.

 

[Lindon]

In light of TVR's complaints about the failure to influence the results via diaspora voting, I'm now again backing the system that the jury results should be known before the televoting begins to strengthen the influence of the juries. The fifty/fifty vote can remain.

 

[Alaska49]

wait, did TVR complain that the romanian diaspora didn't come through or did they complain that OTHER countries having diaspora was bad for them? because if it's the latter i can't imagine a more ridiculous complaint lmao

 

[Realest]

They complained that the Voting in Italy and Germany didnt work and many Romanians couldnt vote for Romania. But Germany doesnt have much Romanian Fans and Italy gave 12 anyway. So Ridiculous.

 

[midnightsun]

I would say keep the juries if they stick by their rules. That's all.

As long as they don't I'd prefer a 75% televote / 25% jury system or even 100% televote though I often do not agree with the public but if a song is what the public wants... than it is what it is!