ONE VOTE PER PHONE LINE OR TEXT! Only this time, each voter chooses the way the juries choose. Their favorite first, their 2nd favorite next, and so on, all the way down to their 10th favorite; and points are applied according to placement; and whichever contender comes out on top in each country gets the 12 points.
Cool idea, but might be too overwhelming for the casual viewer, and that kind of format wouldn't work on phone or text. Could be done online or on the app though.
6:15 MOST DEFINITELY! If there was _ever_ a moment when a slogan failed so miserably and without question, it was THIS year! The slogan must go! Like _YESTERDAY!_ It deprives every host city and country of its uniqueness (consider "Light Your Fire", from the Land of Fire 🇦🇿). Switzerland should have the right to go with a slogan that best represents the moment; something like "Where It All Began", since they have not hosted the contest in a very long time (36 years), and it IS where it began.
In an ideal world, yes, but MÖ said a couple of years ago that the EBU have discussed it before but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Money, and guaranteeing their large audience for the final are the likely rationales.
4:34 That is a common misconception. Larger juries will not lower the impact of juries in the total score. Larger juries will just make the different score more similar than they are now. In Eurovision, the televotes are more concentrated on a few top songs, while juries tends to spread out points more evenly, as all the voters in countries will become more of one block. Having only 5 jurors makes them vote more different
This is a long shot.. have the Big 5 compete in the semi-finals. Yes I know they pay the most but Sweden and the Netherlands for examples pay a big chunk as well. Only have the host winner country automatically go the final. Have the host country have an original slogan again. It gives a special theme to the contest each year. Have the EBU enforce the rules they already have. If an artist has a banned flag for example , exclude that artist or have financial sanctions against the artist and or the delegation. Attract more sponsors so more countries can participate.
I kinda want to experiment with voting systems and add juries to the semifinals but in finals only televoting votes. This is how to make Malta and some others qualify. Only problem is that Poland and other televote friendly countries would qualify less with this system
Poland's televote magnetism is very much fictional. All of Poland's friends were in semi this year and they still didn't qualify. The singer does actually need to sing well. We've seen from semi final 1 this year that the televote isn't as predictable as we thought. Moldova is another televote country but failed to qualify. And several ballads got through which was not predicted because televoters rarely, if ever, support so many ballads/serious songs.
Well, something *did* happen, so it wasn't exactly no reason. But there is a fair debate to be had about whether DQ was proportionate. Personally, I'm not getting too involved in the debate - we don't have the full facts about what happened, and likely never will. I just hope the EBU and AVROTROS can resolve their differences because this public spat they're having is horrible to see.
All I want is Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Romania to come back and for Czechia to remain next year. As for Israel and the Netherlands, I’d suggest that they take a year off for now.
Thank you for sharing your opinions. I agree with all your points, excepting number 3. I don't see what the matter is with a winner who is 5th (which is good) at one of the two rankings. If an artist presents a song with at the same time neater lyrics, staging, musical construction, harmonics work, vocal performance and overall coherence than the other contesants... it's normal that jury votes converge to this one song, and hence that the latter widely dominates jury rankings. Should we blame the jury or encourage participants to work more for sending more quality? If an athlete is a much better swimmer than the others at a triathlon race, should we change the triathlon's rules to favor the road runners for the next races? No, the others contestants have to improve their swim. Same thing to me about Eurovision 50/50 rules.
I think the problem is that we have seen a similar situation two years in a row. This trend of juries flocking to one song continuing, blocking the public winner, would not be good for the contest IMO. If the public doesn't feel like they can have a significant impact on who the winner will be, they will be less compelled to vote. I have a suspicion that the 100% televote semis may have something to do with it. The Grand Final would be more of an even playing field if both the results of the semis and the final were decided by the same system.
@@definitelynotabot1743 I don't know about semi-finals' impact on grand final voting system. But twice a row is not enough for me to observe a trend. The choice of Nemo or Loreen is widely explainable by their complete versatility in performing plus a huge artistic work... a combination that they were sole to show in their contest (well... Bambie Thug wasn't consensual enough I guess). Perhaps, we won't have such complete performers next time. Maybe, we'll have 2, 3 or 4, or 8, which would get the juries more divided. We don't know, let's not overaticipate. Televoting still has a huge impact. The last two year's public winners were second of the Grand Final thanks to them, which a super great ranking. And I don't see why public's choice should be prioritary on jury's choice to select the winner. Each one voter from millions is already conscious to ahve very little influence on the final result. But they still do vote. And finally, the public has the same vices as those attributed to juries' faults, but in a worse and accepted way. No, 50/50 is the best solution in GF and SF. The public will see again and multiple times their favorite entry winning. But not all the time, it's not just a contest of popularity.
@@definitelynotabot1743 Oh don't worry, I know you don't want 100% televote. And I agree with you at this last point. I was just reacting to some details. :)
This is probably gonna be a lot more complicated considering the broadcaster requirements needed to enter Eurovision and I also don't know how they actually prove this and how easy it actually is to just lie through this, but in the Olympics if you're from a country banned from the competition and prove you don't support the government and what the reason they were banned for, you can compete neutral so we could maybe get a couple of these neutral countries and make them compete in their own mini song contest to qualify to the final with the help of some kind of broadcaster? And also I feel like the jury votes will benefit greatly if we diversify the types of people in the juries, like more songwriters or smth so more viewpoints can be added and more parts of the song can be analyzed when deciding who to vote for
5 things I want : 1) Monaco to return 2) Bring juries back to the semis 3) Remove the production choice in the GF's running order 4) Remove the generic slogan for the return of indivifual ones 5) Make the contest more accessible financially-speaking. I hardly believe that the EBU is lacking funds, the ESC should not be about making profits but about celebrating music and peace between countries, and this is worth any kind of money. Make the entry ticket smaller for countries, they already pay way enough to be in the EBU in the first place
Monaco are very poor and have no interest in participating. I want Liechtenstein or Kosovo to debut, the only European countries that haven't debuted yet.
@@paul_pave We already know that Kosovo won't be there in 2025, we still hope for Liechtenstein to be there although I'm not convinced they'll be accepted by the EBU
the issue regarding the voting system is not the ratio; 50/50 is still the most proper. it is the "why". the "how" can only be slightly modified if the modification does not include altering the ratio. no matter how the voting system is, there will still be some forms of bias (neighbourhood, political "friendship", enthusiasm towards the performer regardless of the song quality).
7:42 Aye. And again, congrats to Latvia 🇱🇻, who broke out of an absolutely ugly slump that almost had them considering taking a break. I knew Dons was going to qualify. So, (1) is easier said than done (it was the right decision concerning Russia); (2) see my solution in the comments here; (3) eliminate the return of jury bribery; (4) see my other comment here; and (5) maybe add 1 or 2 guest countries every year, rotating from year to year, but by way of limited contracts so that the contest doesn't get overloaded.
I quite like the idea of rotating guest countries - I actually made reference to it in an article for ESC Insight a little while back. escinsight.com/2024/03/13/eurovisions-shrinkage-problem-and-some-ideas-to-fix-it/
@@stopitdad5024 I was thinking SK might be one of those who would almost certainly be invited. With the exception of maybe BTS, Blackpink and Aespa (who are way too popular for us to think they would audition), it would most certainly be a free-for-all at their national contest to get into Eurovision.
@@CookyMonzta exactly, for that reason we should use either a soloist (ex. Tae-min Lee) or a group of 6 (ex. Red Velvet) who can really sing for South Korea in Eurovision.
1. A ban large-scale advertising campaigns for votes. They're absolutely antithetical to the spirit of the contest, and if they're allowed to become a normal part of Eurovision, participation would plummet. The contest is barely justifiable for many broadcasters as it is, and the mere suggestion that they must also launch an expensive ad campaign to have a chance will make them withdraw. 2. A 27-song final because the Netherlands is given a guaranteed spot to make up for the one lost in 2024. If they choose to sit out, the spot should be waiting for their first year back. 3. For 2026, an invitation to the non-EBU member with the second-biggest Eurovision fandom. Every ten contests, extend another invite.
it's because when russia was banned, it was because there were 10 countries (including ukraine) complaining and even threatening to boycott eurovision, but when a similar situation happens with israel, europe is pretty divided on it and im pretty sure back in 2019 a country didn't want israel in eurovision and tried to boycott it but it was unsuccessful
I think the problem with the points was created in 2016 when the public and jury votes were parted. I think going back to the pre 2016 point system should help a bit
I'd really like to France considering witdrawal turn out to be true because that will rock EBU and force them to make changes. Politics will never not interfere, but jury needs to have less power. Also, every country that can politically influence voting should be automatically not allowed to participate. That includes Ukraine and Israel until the wars are over.
I really disagree with your point. I don't think Ukraine should be disqualified because of a war that they did not cause. Ukraine is a victim here, it should not be treated as a wrongdoer. Plus, the country also needs to be represented so that we remember what they are going through, I think it's really important from a moral standpoint. I can understand that making an apolitical contest is an attractive idea, but since nothing can be apolitical, maybe we should simply accept that politics are, at least to some extent, part of the contest, and keep the countries that are in no way controversial in it. If the votes are biased towards Ukraine because of the war, then blame Putin, not Ukrainians.
@@lasthmatique You actually proved my point. Ukraine is a victim. Because of that, they "need to be" on top every year. Not allowing Ukraine to compete is exacly the way to make the contest apolitical, because as long as they participate during the war, they're gonna be percieved as victims and recieve pity points and that's pure bias. Many people don't even consider Ukraine as a winner in 2022, only on paper, because it was, and you must agree, purely political win. Moreover, Ukraine is legally cheating. Due to war many of Ukrainians emigrated and vote for themselves from other countries. You can disagree as much as you like, but Ukraine has more reasons for a ban than Russia.
@@ESCHayden 1. Jury/televote must be 40/60. 2. Every country that can influence on voting needs to be banned. a) Performer that have already won the contest cannot compete again (influence via person - people are going to vote for a person insted for a song). b) Song lyrics must be apolitical. c) Performance must be apolitical. 3. Country that is not able to host the contest for whatever reason should not compete. If such a coutry competes and wins, they should be the leading financial support for a country hosting instead. That's for start.
@@missk9521 that's the wildest take I've seen in a while lmao. You are seriously claiming that banning Ukraine would be more justified than Russia. The least I can say is that it's unsettling. So since there's a lot to unpack, I'll just answer to the points you made one by one. First of all, absolutely nothing will make the contest apolitical, and clearly banning Ukraine won't help. Simply because everything is political. The EBU claiming that the ESC is apolitical is pretty much a lie, just like claiming that the SCOTUS is apolitical, for instance. The mere fact that the contestants are countries is enough to prove that the contest only pretends to be apolitical. Again, there are some cases which are more obviously political than others, and Ukraine's participation is one of them, but fundamentally it doesn't change anything. Second, you seem obsessed with the idea of making the Eurovision apolitical, which led you to some questionable statements, but I just don't get why it should be the case. I don't mind us collectively pretending that the contest is apolitical while acknowledging that it actually isn't, but I don't understand why we should actively try to make it a thing. What is bad about politics ? What is good about the hypothetical apolitical nature of the contest ? I'd be grateful if you explained why you think it's important, because I for sure cannot see why it is. Third, about "pity votes", I admit that they exist (obviously), but before I talk about them I'll just note that it's pretty hard to evaluate to what extent those votes are indeed "pity" votes, partly because Ukraine happens to take the contest seriously and tends to send songs that are actually good. Kalush Orchestra definitely received such a high televote because of the war, but still it was a serious contender. In 2021, Ukraine got the 3rd highest score in the televote, before the war even started. Now about those pity votes, yes they exist and I don't think it's that big of a deal. We're talking about a song contest... Ukraine winning in 2022 did make some Eurofans mad because Fulenn received 17 points instead of 22, but I have to say that the message of unity behind Ukraine was, in my opinion, way more important. The Eurovision permitted Europe to show Ukraine that we were standing with them. I think that's a beautiful message. That's the "pity" part of "pity votes", people don't just vote without anything in mind and it's fine. Yeah, it's a shame that the UK or Spain didn't win, but I think that I can live with it (Plus technically Moldova was 2nd in the televote with a funny song so I wouldn't even say that Spain was robbed haha). About recognizing that Ukraine won the contest, welp, they won. Just because some fans don't want to doesn't change it. They played by the rules, they won. Just like if Israel had won fair and square in 2024, we would just have to accept it, cause this is why rules exist in a contest (not that I wouldn't have been mad, though). Also, this was not a purely political win, cause as I have said they were strong contenders even before the war (and I just really like the song), and they respected the rules since the lyrics were not particularly political, etc. Again, they do not have to be punished for other people's actions. And they were the ones being invaded, dammit. Last thing, Ukraine is definitely not cheating. No rule is preventing people from voting for their country from abroad. Especially not when they are refugees fleeing war. Also, diaspora is a thing. If, as you claim, people who emigrated voting for their native country is enough material for a ban, then we should get rid of Armenia and France, Lithuania and the UK, and pretty much every country because migration is a thing. And also I guess we should ban countries that vote for their neighbors ? So goodbye Cyprus and Greece, Spain and Portugal, Sweden and Finland, Croatia and Serbia, etc. So have fun with a contest with just San Marino and Malta left. Anyway, I did not prove your point, because your point is essentially that politics is bad, and I don't think that I said anything that would suggest that this claim is true. I just think that, considering that we cannot in any way whatsoever get rid of politics, and that claiming that the ESC is apolitical is either denial or a convenient lie, maybe we could accept that the Eurovision does include politics, and embrace it. Being a platform for LGBTQ+ rights is, I think, great, yet it is political. Showing support to a country that's being invaded is also cool I think, while not being apolitical. Trying to show the world that democracy is a good thing is also something I support. But including countries that invade others, or that commit what really seems like a g*nocide, well I don't agree with that. It's as simple as that. I think that accepting that politics matters actually allows us to get rid of the countless contradictions that we cannot avoid if we want an apolitical contest. But "pretending" that the ESC is apolitical is a good thing I suppose, even though it's false. Because it can spread progressive political ideas better (by supporting LGBTQ+ rights, etc.), and because it allows us to rest our brains, sometimes.
Televote system is simply not fair because a country who got 11th/26 in a country's televote ranking doesn't get any points while it got a lot of votes. That needs to be fixed
Controversial idea, ban live backing vocals but consider auto tune (auto tune still needs live vocals, and remember Eurovision is a song contest, but most importantly, make auto tune OPTIONAL, as some singers may showcase themselves better without auto tune).
3:17 I mean it's not our fault if the UK sends useless songs and flops hard. Maybe start sending decent songs instead of claiming a "golden era" that doesn't exist 😂
I want to see Montenegro FINALLY end their Non-Qualification Streak!
Likewise 👍
Denmark too!
@@wibbliams considering the shitty way they manage to do DMGP I highly doubt so lol
CELINE DION!! THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SEE IN EUROVISION 2025!!
Yes please!
ONE VOTE PER PHONE LINE OR TEXT! Only this time, each voter chooses the way the juries choose. Their favorite first, their 2nd favorite next, and so on, all the way down to their 10th favorite; and points are applied according to placement; and whichever contender comes out on top in each country gets the 12 points.
Cool idea, but might be too overwhelming for the casual viewer, and that kind of format wouldn't work on phone or text. Could be done online or on the app though.
6:15 MOST DEFINITELY! If there was _ever_ a moment when a slogan failed so miserably and without question, it was THIS year!
The slogan must go! Like _YESTERDAY!_ It deprives every host city and country of its uniqueness (consider "Light Your Fire", from the Land of Fire 🇦🇿).
Switzerland should have the right to go with a slogan that best represents the moment; something like "Where It All Began", since they have not hosted the contest in a very long time (36 years), and it IS where it began.
I would like to see the big 5 compete in the semis
they already perform in semis, they're just automatic qualifiers
In an ideal world, yes, but MÖ said a couple of years ago that the EBU have discussed it before but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Money, and guaranteeing their large audience for the final are the likely rationales.
4:34 That is a common misconception. Larger juries will not lower the impact of juries in the total score. Larger juries will just make the different score more similar than they are now. In Eurovision, the televotes are more concentrated on a few top songs, while juries tends to spread out points more evenly, as all the voters in countries will become more of one block. Having only 5 jurors makes them vote more different
We need Montenegro in the final!
@@Jesuisunblob If Georgia, Ireland and Latvia broke the curse this year, so can Montenegro do the same next year!
This is masterpiece! I love this!
Thank you 😁
This is a long shot.. have the Big 5 compete in the semi-finals. Yes I know they pay the most but Sweden and the Netherlands for examples pay a big chunk as well. Only have the host winner country automatically go the final.
Have the host country have an original slogan again. It gives a special theme to the contest each year.
Have the EBU enforce the rules they already have. If an artist has a banned flag for example , exclude that artist or have financial sanctions against the artist and or the delegation.
Attract more sponsors so more countries can participate.
I kinda want to experiment with voting systems and add juries to the semifinals but in finals only televoting votes. This is how to make Malta and some others qualify. Only problem is that Poland and other televote friendly countries would qualify less with this system
Televote only final 😬
Poland's televote magnetism is very much fictional. All of Poland's friends were in semi this year and they still didn't qualify. The singer does actually need to sing well. We've seen from semi final 1 this year that the televote isn't as predictable as we thought. Moldova is another televote country but failed to qualify. And several ballads got through which was not predicted because televoters rarely, if ever, support so many ballads/serious songs.
I'm from Malta is agree
@@GilmourAttatd I hope you guys send Aidan :) He is the most popular so he might qualify and get a high place
also mabe the ebu can NOT kick people for grand finals foe no reason? like the joost klein case that got *closed*.
Well, something *did* happen, so it wasn't exactly no reason. But there is a fair debate to be had about whether DQ was proportionate. Personally, I'm not getting too involved in the debate - we don't have the full facts about what happened, and likely never will. I just hope the EBU and AVROTROS can resolve their differences because this public spat they're having is horrible to see.
I agree we should start using Online voting
All I want is Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Romania to come back and for Czechia to remain next year. As for Israel and the Netherlands, I’d suggest that they take a year off for now.
We need the juries back in the semi finals
I agree whit all the 5 things
Thank you for sharing your opinions. I agree with all your points, excepting number 3. I don't see what the matter is with a winner who is 5th (which is good) at one of the two rankings. If an artist presents a song with at the same time neater lyrics, staging, musical construction, harmonics work, vocal performance and overall coherence than the other contesants... it's normal that jury votes converge to this one song, and hence that the latter widely dominates jury rankings. Should we blame the jury or encourage participants to work more for sending more quality?
If an athlete is a much better swimmer than the others at a triathlon race, should we change the triathlon's rules to favor the road runners for the next races? No, the others contestants have to improve their swim. Same thing to me about Eurovision 50/50 rules.
I think the problem is that we have seen a similar situation two years in a row. This trend of juries flocking to one song continuing, blocking the public winner, would not be good for the contest IMO. If the public doesn't feel like they can have a significant impact on who the winner will be, they will be less compelled to vote. I have a suspicion that the 100% televote semis may have something to do with it. The Grand Final would be more of an even playing field if both the results of the semis and the final were decided by the same system.
@@definitelynotabot1743 I don't know about semi-finals' impact on grand final voting system. But twice a row is not enough for me to observe a trend. The choice of Nemo or Loreen is widely explainable by their complete versatility in performing plus a huge artistic work... a combination that they were sole to show in their contest (well... Bambie Thug wasn't consensual enough I guess).
Perhaps, we won't have such complete performers next time. Maybe, we'll have 2, 3 or 4, or 8, which would get the juries more divided. We don't know, let's not overaticipate.
Televoting still has a huge impact. The last two year's public winners were second of the Grand Final thanks to them, which a super great ranking. And I don't see why public's choice should be prioritary on jury's choice to select the winner. Each one voter from millions is already conscious to ahve very little influence on the final result. But they still do vote.
And finally, the public has the same vices as those attributed to juries' faults, but in a worse and accepted way.
No, 50/50 is the best solution in GF and SF. The public will see again and multiple times their favorite entry winning. But not all the time, it's not just a contest of popularity.
@@danteajax6163 My point was that the semis should go back to the 50/50 split, not that the final should also be 100% televote.
@@definitelynotabot1743 Oh don't worry, I know you don't want 100% televote. And I agree with you at this last point. I was just reacting to some details. :)
Türkiye Come Back İn Eurovision 😣😣🇹🇷
This is probably gonna be a lot more complicated considering the broadcaster requirements needed to enter Eurovision and I also don't know how they actually prove this and how easy it actually is to just lie through this, but in the Olympics if you're from a country banned from the competition and prove you don't support the government and what the reason they were banned for, you can compete neutral so we could maybe get a couple of these neutral countries and make them compete in their own mini song contest to qualify to the final with the help of some kind of broadcaster? And also I feel like the jury votes will benefit greatly if we diversify the types of people in the juries, like more songwriters or smth so more viewpoints can be added and more parts of the song can be analyzed when deciding who to vote for
Oh and I would add a sixth one : Limit Backing Vocals
Or just forbid it!
Definitely, it was a covid innovation that went out of control
Celine Dion for sure 👍😎❤️
5 things I want :
1) Monaco to return
2) Bring juries back to the semis
3) Remove the production choice in the GF's running order
4) Remove the generic slogan for the return of indivifual ones
5) Make the contest more accessible financially-speaking. I hardly believe that the EBU is lacking funds, the ESC should not be about making profits but about celebrating music and peace between countries, and this is worth any kind of money. Make the entry ticket smaller for countries, they already pay way enough to be in the EBU in the first place
I agree with all except for the 3rd one
Monaco back please!!! ❤
I agree with all except for the 3rd one
Monaco are very poor and have no interest in participating. I want Liechtenstein or Kosovo to debut, the only European countries that haven't debuted yet.
@@paul_pave We already know that Kosovo won't be there in 2025, we still hope for Liechtenstein to be there although I'm not convinced they'll be accepted by the EBU
the issue regarding the voting system is not the ratio; 50/50 is still the most proper. it is the "why". the "how" can only be slightly modified if the modification does not include altering the ratio. no matter how the voting system is, there will still be some forms of bias (neighbourhood, political "friendship", enthusiasm towards the performer regardless of the song quality).
It's actually 5 years for Denmark
Oh yeah, so it is! 😭
@@ESCHayden we all get confused at times 😭😭😭💀
Let's pray for Monaco's return!!! ❤❤❤
7:42 Aye. And again, congrats to Latvia 🇱🇻, who broke out of an absolutely ugly slump that almost had them considering taking a break. I knew Dons was going to qualify.
So, (1) is easier said than done (it was the right decision concerning Russia); (2) see my solution in the comments here; (3) eliminate the return of jury bribery; (4) see my other comment here; and (5) maybe add 1 or 2 guest countries every year, rotating from year to year, but by way of limited contracts so that the contest doesn't get overloaded.
I quite like the idea of rotating guest countries - I actually made reference to it in an article for ESC Insight a little while back. escinsight.com/2024/03/13/eurovisions-shrinkage-problem-and-some-ideas-to-fix-it/
As for (5) I love your idea of using guest countries in Eurovision more often (ex. South Korea).
@@stopitdad5024 I was thinking SK might be one of those who would almost certainly be invited. With the exception of maybe BTS, Blackpink and Aespa (who are way too popular for us to think they would audition), it would most certainly be a free-for-all at their national contest to get into Eurovision.
@@CookyMonzta exactly, for that reason we should use either a soloist (ex. Tae-min Lee) or a group of 6 (ex. Red Velvet) who can really sing for South Korea in Eurovision.
1. A ban large-scale advertising campaigns for votes. They're absolutely antithetical to the spirit of the contest, and if they're allowed to become a normal part of Eurovision, participation would plummet. The contest is barely justifiable for many broadcasters as it is, and the mere suggestion that they must also launch an expensive ad campaign to have a chance will make them withdraw.
2. A 27-song final because the Netherlands is given a guaranteed spot to make up for the one lost in 2024. If they choose to sit out, the spot should be waiting for their first year back.
3. For 2026, an invitation to the non-EBU member with the second-biggest Eurovision fandom. Every ten contests, extend another invite.
Denmark hasn’t qualified for 4 years I think you’d confused with Malta
How did you do this? 😮
Could you be a little more specific? 👀
@@ESCHayden oh, Ok.
@@Bracia2498 I'm willing to answer your question, but I'm not sure what in particular you're referring to.
@@ESCHayden
This whole narrative.
@@Bracia2498 I made some notes, scripted it, and sent it off to someone who does the narration for my videos.
7:30 denmark don"t have the longest non qualification streak montenegro have with 5
That's true, but I wrote the script a while before Montenegro announced they were coming back.
Please let Denmark qualify next year! Same with Iceland! 🥺
How hypocritical is mentioning Israel to be banned and not why Russia was banned, it's the same thing.
it's because when russia was banned, it was because there were 10 countries (including ukraine) complaining and even threatening to boycott eurovision, but when a similar situation happens with israel, europe is pretty divided on it and im pretty sure back in 2019 a country didn't want israel in eurovision and tried to boycott it but it was unsuccessful
Ukraine didnt kill 1200 people in Russia...
5 things I do NOT want to see at Eurovision 2025:
1. Israel
Oh I definitely want to see Israel.
You're really living up to the slogan "United By Music"...
@@keahnig164 i live the same as israeli people in the media center 4 months ago
I think the problem with the points was created in 2016 when the public and jury votes were parted. I think going back to the pre 2016 point system should help a bit
7:40 Denmark song was soooo nice, idk whi it didn't qualify
I'd really like to France considering witdrawal turn out to be true because that will rock EBU and force them to make changes. Politics will never not interfere, but jury needs to have less power. Also, every country that can politically influence voting should be automatically not allowed to participate. That includes Ukraine and Israel until the wars are over.
I really disagree with your point. I don't think Ukraine should be disqualified because of a war that they did not cause. Ukraine is a victim here, it should not be treated as a wrongdoer. Plus, the country also needs to be represented so that we remember what they are going through, I think it's really important from a moral standpoint. I can understand that making an apolitical contest is an attractive idea, but since nothing can be apolitical, maybe we should simply accept that politics are, at least to some extent, part of the contest, and keep the countries that are in no way controversial in it. If the votes are biased towards Ukraine because of the war, then blame Putin, not Ukrainians.
France have already confirmed they're participating, as have the rest of the Big 5. The politics one is tricky - how/where do you set the parameters?
@@lasthmatique You actually proved my point. Ukraine is a victim. Because of that, they "need to be" on top every year. Not allowing Ukraine to compete is exacly the way to make the contest apolitical, because as long as they participate during the war, they're gonna be percieved as victims and recieve pity points and that's pure bias. Many people don't even consider Ukraine as a winner in 2022, only on paper, because it was, and you must agree, purely political win. Moreover, Ukraine is legally cheating. Due to war many of Ukrainians emigrated and vote for themselves from other countries. You can disagree as much as you like, but Ukraine has more reasons for a ban than Russia.
@@ESCHayden
1. Jury/televote must be 40/60.
2. Every country that can influence on voting needs to be banned.
a) Performer that have already won the contest cannot compete again (influence via person - people are going to vote for a person insted for a song).
b) Song lyrics must be apolitical.
c) Performance must be apolitical.
3. Country that is not able to host the contest for whatever reason should not compete. If such a coutry competes and wins, they should be the leading financial support for a country hosting instead.
That's for start.
@@missk9521 that's the wildest take I've seen in a while lmao. You are seriously claiming that banning Ukraine would be more justified than Russia. The least I can say is that it's unsettling.
So since there's a lot to unpack, I'll just answer to the points you made one by one.
First of all, absolutely nothing will make the contest apolitical, and clearly banning Ukraine won't help. Simply because everything is political. The EBU claiming that the ESC is apolitical is pretty much a lie, just like claiming that the SCOTUS is apolitical, for instance. The mere fact that the contestants are countries is enough to prove that the contest only pretends to be apolitical. Again, there are some cases which are more obviously political than others, and Ukraine's participation is one of them, but fundamentally it doesn't change anything.
Second, you seem obsessed with the idea of making the Eurovision apolitical, which led you to some questionable statements, but I just don't get why it should be the case. I don't mind us collectively pretending that the contest is apolitical while acknowledging that it actually isn't, but I don't understand why we should actively try to make it a thing. What is bad about politics ? What is good about the hypothetical apolitical nature of the contest ? I'd be grateful if you explained why you think it's important, because I for sure cannot see why it is.
Third, about "pity votes", I admit that they exist (obviously), but before I talk about them I'll just note that it's pretty hard to evaluate to what extent those votes are indeed "pity" votes, partly because Ukraine happens to take the contest seriously and tends to send songs that are actually good. Kalush Orchestra definitely received such a high televote because of the war, but still it was a serious contender. In 2021, Ukraine got the 3rd highest score in the televote, before the war even started.
Now about those pity votes, yes they exist and I don't think it's that big of a deal. We're talking about a song contest... Ukraine winning in 2022 did make some Eurofans mad because Fulenn received 17 points instead of 22, but I have to say that the message of unity behind Ukraine was, in my opinion, way more important. The Eurovision permitted Europe to show Ukraine that we were standing with them. I think that's a beautiful message. That's the "pity" part of "pity votes", people don't just vote without anything in mind and it's fine. Yeah, it's a shame that the UK or Spain didn't win, but I think that I can live with it (Plus technically Moldova was 2nd in the televote with a funny song so I wouldn't even say that Spain was robbed haha).
About recognizing that Ukraine won the contest, welp, they won. Just because some fans don't want to doesn't change it. They played by the rules, they won. Just like if Israel had won fair and square in 2024, we would just have to accept it, cause this is why rules exist in a contest (not that I wouldn't have been mad, though).
Also, this was not a purely political win, cause as I have said they were strong contenders even before the war (and I just really like the song), and they respected the rules since the lyrics were not particularly political, etc. Again, they do not have to be punished for other people's actions. And they were the ones being invaded, dammit.
Last thing, Ukraine is definitely not cheating. No rule is preventing people from voting for their country from abroad. Especially not when they are refugees fleeing war. Also, diaspora is a thing. If, as you claim, people who emigrated voting for their native country is enough material for a ban, then we should get rid of Armenia and France, Lithuania and the UK, and pretty much every country because migration is a thing. And also I guess we should ban countries that vote for their neighbors ? So goodbye Cyprus and Greece, Spain and Portugal, Sweden and Finland, Croatia and Serbia, etc. So have fun with a contest with just San Marino and Malta left.
Anyway, I did not prove your point, because your point is essentially that politics is bad, and I don't think that I said anything that would suggest that this claim is true. I just think that, considering that we cannot in any way whatsoever get rid of politics, and that claiming that the ESC is apolitical is either denial or a convenient lie, maybe we could accept that the Eurovision does include politics, and embrace it. Being a platform for LGBTQ+ rights is, I think, great, yet it is political. Showing support to a country that's being invaded is also cool I think, while not being apolitical. Trying to show the world that democracy is a good thing is also something I support. But including countries that invade others, or that commit what really seems like a g*nocide, well I don't agree with that. It's as simple as that. I think that accepting that politics matters actually allows us to get rid of the countless contradictions that we cannot avoid if we want an apolitical contest.
But "pretending" that the ESC is apolitical is a good thing I suppose, even though it's false. Because it can spread progressive political ideas better (by supporting LGBTQ+ rights, etc.), and because it allows us to rest our brains, sometimes.
Televote system is simply not fair because a country who got 11th/26 in a country's televote ranking doesn't get any points while it got a lot of votes. That needs to be fixed
Yeah, in the GF at least I'd like to see points go to the top 15. I covered it in a similar video about a year ago.
@@ESCHayden Yeah that was a very good one. The chance there are countries with 0 points are almost zero in that system.
Controversial idea, ban live backing vocals but consider auto tune (auto tune still needs live vocals, and remember Eurovision is a song contest, but most importantly, make auto tune OPTIONAL, as some singers may showcase themselves better without auto tune).
I think that's marginally better than what we have now.
I just want Joost Klein to win
1:51 Israel 2022 is the best Eurovision song
Lol absolutely not 🤡
@@giovanniscg8540True 🤡
3:17 I mean it's not our fault if the UK sends useless songs and flops hard. Maybe start sending decent songs instead of claiming a "golden era" that doesn't exist 😂
I just want Joost Klein to win
Wrong mindset