I think for the televote, there needs to be a cap limit to how many votes you can allocate towards a song. I was thinking a maximum of five votes for country, so that other countries get the love.
2008 was the climax of the joking entries. Almost half of the countries send things for non/eurofans to make (more) fun of Eurovision. I'm glad in 2009 juries returned and are still here. (You forgot even worse entries, like Estonia and Ireland 2008).
It was in the middle of the financial crisis and every country tried to send as ridiculous song as possible in order not to host. Also, Verka Serdushka came second the year prior, and we always have copycat entries of the successful acts the following year.
I think there is one piece thats easily forgotten in the Jury and Public split - The Jury votes and the Public votes are based from entirely separate performances. Theres been more than a few well known years where an act has suffered because of issues with their Jury perfomance (Notably Keiino).
With Keiino the issue was on the part of the production team so it wouldn't have been reflected in the score because that's not a fault of the delegation or performers. They also scored very similarly with the juries in both their semi final and final, so this is a myth.
@@stu_makes_vids I guess the Keiino one is but I still think theres some validity. If you compared the perfomance of Tattoo in the Semi finals to the Final, theres a significant difference. My point was more that two perfomances could be quite difference. Probably a better example oddly would be SuRi's Storm - if you just compare vocals, performance etc before and after the stage invader incident. (Dont get me wrong, its still a weak song but theres a significant shift)
Expanding the juries and making them match the age and genre of the performing artists and songs is a good first step. In addition, making the jurors explain their rankings based on the criteria would make the juries more transparent. The jury affair is next to opaque as is. After that we can start to talk about a possible shift in the public/jury split. Also, instead of the top 10, both the juries and the public should give points to more entries (eg. Lord of the Lost got a lot of 11th placements but ended up last). After all that, I'd be willing to make the split 2:1 but after the previous adjustments it won't be necessary in my opinion.
I agree 100%, the juries should be expended, maybe a demoscopic jury with 20 people, where all age groups, different genres, ethnicities, etc are being represented. And yes, the Top 15 need to receive points, it can't be the case that 15 or 16 countries aren't getting any points. And Germany, who in most cases finished neither in the Top 10, nor in the Bottom 10, probably would have gotten more points than the UK which had the highest number of last places in the televote. And this is also more reflective of the will of the people. Or or in other words, one country could be 11th to 15th (16th) everywhere and not get any points, while another country could be in the bottom 5 everywhere, except for their 2 or 3 voting buddies and is gonna get points, even though Europe in general perceived the song with 0 points much better.
Sweden wasn't the winner of the majority of jurors but they were never bottom 5 in any of the juror ranking, meanwhile Finland was. I don't understand how people can argue that it had to win compared to Sweden.
Imo, 50/50 was already perfect, especially when it comes of professionality, also another fact, if you compare viewership between televote-only era and the time juries came back was very different, especially if you compare the ratings between 2008 and 2013???
Personally i believe that the public has a bigger power than the juries, when it comes to the winner, while the power of televote goes lower and lower. While the bottom 5 juries have the biggest power to me. Because juries tend to vote more homogeneously, their fav usually gets less points than the televote’s fav , with some exceptions. I think the voting system is okay, it only needs a reform of juries to be more representative
I think the 50/50 is the fairest we can ever get to. If people think that only jury voting has problem, I would argue that televote one has also problems. In the country that I live voting for a song is freaking expensive, it is 1 euro per each vote. A student like me with limited budget would never waste 20 euros to vote for his favourite entry. Meanwhile a person who has a lot of money and possess three sim cards can spend up to 60 euros and give a song 60 votes. Will this show what the majority of the public likes, hell no. Both Sweden and Finland have somehow the same number of views in youtube ( Sweden is far ahead in spotify). So in my opinion the gap in televote between both countries can be easily explained that it is Televoting problem. Sweden deserved the victory this year, but the toxic fans are the reason why you see people complaining.
True, ppl calling only the juries could "rigged", but ignores the fact that televotes was easier to "rigged" (especially within smaller countries), It's just simply many sim card and vote (plus call center services).
About the finnish excample of Looking back, english language, kinda safe choice vs. Cicciolina, the fun song in finnish, not your typical eurovision winner. 3 years have gone by, Cicciolina is still a well known song, Erika Vikman is making music and touring and the other song and the guy who sang it are nowhere to be seen. I can hear english pop songs everywhere, only in ESC can I hear Ukraine folk inspired music or songs in moldovan language, that's why I watch the show, not to see and hear the jury pleasing safe songs that sound no different than whatever is on top of hit charts and in radio.
Old people also really hated Erika Vikman due to her dating Danny 75 old artist at the time and her dirty lyrics etc. Staging also was TERRIBLE at UMK, but UMK is known from bad staging. Vote was basically Erika vs anything else for some people
Wow, good for cherry picking a few joke entries from the 2000s to excuse the juries, completely ignoring all the great songs that won (Molitva, Hard Rock Hallelujah, My Number One, Wild Dances). Totally a great argument.
My suggestion would be to keep 12-1 for the jury but let the televote allocate 26-1. This way the EBU would give more say to the public overall while also better showcasing the preferences of the public in the midfield instead of giving 0 televote points to everyone outside of the public’s top 10.
I actually like this. Would bring a lot of excitement and movement and people would have the biggest say and the reward feeling and union as Eurovision should be about
@@nilerra8181 IMO increasing the power of the televote would reduce excitement because the televote is so much more predictable. So many people easily predicted 9 or all 10 qualifiers this year because it's so easy to see what the public will be drawn to. It takes away all the suspense and drama if we know the televote winner will almost certainly be able to overhaul the jury winner with their massive points total. The current system throws up many variables and avenues to win and that uncertainty creates excitement.
That's how it works in the Melodifestivalen grand final. We have about 7-8 Eurovision countries to give out point, meaning the viewers should've have more power. But that theroy is thrown out the window when you realize there are only 12 acts in the grand final. Loreen didn't even get 12 points from every jury, Croatia jury gave thier 12 points to Theoz.
Cicciolina didn't broke televote in UMK like Cha Cha Cha or Dark Side did. And 2020 had Dadi, The Roop and Little Big. Maybe a televote Top 10 but needed a better performance. Juries would have probably destroyed it like Norway 2023/2019 tho
@@nilerra8181 Cicciolina not doing well in televotes in UMK had much to do with part of the public hating Erika as a person. You know she was dating a 75+ year old artist. And UMK is known from ABSOLUTELY horrendous staging, see her staging at UMK compared to music video lol. Televote was basically young people vs old people
There is also a problem with the public vote system since it takes the votes from a country and put them into points etc… this can result in quite misleading points. Lets say there are three songs. Two of them are the favourites from the majority in a country but there is a fight between them two about the votes… then there is the third song which the majority hates but a “small” interest group loves it… this could get the 12 from that country even though most people hated it… and if the exact same scenario happens in more countries the numbers will be so off. This could for example be one entry being a very heavy and unique death metal song… the majority of people wouldn’t like it at all but death metal fans would love it. Another thing that’s wrong with the public votes is that people’s second favourites basically disappears. Most people will only vote for their favourite… not their second or third favourites. Let’s take a similar scenario again where everyone disagrees about which one of song 1 and 2 is the best… but everyone has song 3 as their second favourite… this song will disappear under the fight between the other two songs where 50% loves 1 and 50% loves 2… but obviously song 3 really deserves the point since 100% almost loves it… Combine the two scenarios to get even more misleading points. Ideal would be if everyone were encouraged to do like the jury. They have an amount of points to give and must divide them between the songs. This will give a lot more recognition to people’s second and third favourites. Give every voter an app where they can rank their 10 favourites… or why not rank all entries
It's not so much about the results being a problem. It's that the overall selection of songs changed since they prioritized spectacle over other factors.
I said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to increase the quality of the songs participating in the finals, then the jury needs to be in the semifinals. Letting the jury decide the overall winner does nothing to increase the overall quality.
I think internally changing juries (making the demographics of them more diverse and having 10 jurors instead of 5, for example) and making the guidelines less vague is a step in the right direction. This isn't just because of what happened this year (Loreen sadly got caught in the middle of it but it's not any fault of hers whatsoever), I personally think songs that aren't radio friendly pop get put at a disadvantage and could potentially lead to the contest getting less diverse with the type of songs sent. At the very least I hope one thing they change is not letting jurors be in the same room while watching the performances since that can lead to a lot of funny business. Changing the point system should absolutely not happen. It's way too complicated and the way things are now is fine.
What is even that talking about how much televoting power some televoting winners would need to win the whole thing? People who want to reduce the jury power don't wanna change this power every year to make televoting winners always win, they just want a fixed lower percentage less than 50%. For me, 33% would be ideal (1/3, I mean). It's lower than 50/50 but higher that 25% that UMK uses. Under that system, Ukraine 2016 would still win over Russia 2016 and Netherlands 2019 over Norway 2019 too, and I don't mind it. The televoting margins between them were small enough (38 points in 2016 and 30 points in 2019), so juries with 33% would still overpower it. In case of the margin of 132 points in 2023, under this system, Finland would have won, this margin is too big to be overpowered by juries. Seems fair and not radical
How is it fair for songs that are totally underrated by the public? I really liked Estonia and Lithuania this year, but with a small jury % they would never even have the chance to get even close to the top 5-10. Also, let’s not forget that it would be unfair to have them at the beginning cause that’s a death spot with these conditions. Should we have all ballads at the end? No ballads? That’s terrible and it is against ESC’s idea of diversity.
you can say what you want about the 2000s but there were not bad winners, 2008 was weak in general and probably had the same winner with juries. And about the juries I think they should rework the way their rank works, not only the top gets points but everybody gets some points even if you are last on some juries ranking.
Personally I believe that the best way to make people more happy is to increase the jury count. This will result in a more diverse level of taste and it will reduce the impact in the unlikely event a juror is voting suspiciously, like in 2022. Most Eurofans’ problem with the jury is that the jury’s ranking seems to reward conservative pop songs and punish more stand out songs. I believe that increasing the jury will combat that as it will increase diversity in taste.
25/75 system in UMK is completely useless and irrelevant at least in winner case, might as well being full televote. It affect only minor changes like last 3 places. YLE/UMK team is (still) too dumb and amateurish to realize that, when even succested EBU to modeling their system. 😆 30/70 was more sense.
I'm so tired of using the 00's Eurovision era as a proof that "we need juries". Do people really think that back then, some countries deliberately chose some songs considered by fans as "joke songs" endlessly keeping in mind that "it's 100% televoting, so we need to send something like this"? Imagine some country's jurors or televoters really thinking exactly like that. No, it was just a unique era in the world, in music and in Eurovision. Also, when you just show some songs like Israel 2000, UK 2006, Latvia 2008, Spain 2008 in a row in defense of presence of juries, maybe you should also point out the actual 100% televoting scores of these songs, how well they really did with allegedly "public that likes only fun and games"? Then this argument becomes much weaker. Also, when talking about those years, maybe it's also good to consider the percentage of songs that might be considered as "joke" every year? It also won't be any high
I think the biggest problem with the Televote and Jury way is the big gaps that sometimes arise. I think a way to solve it is maybe choose a maximum place gap and a song that surpasses it gets recieve points to bring it to the maximum gap. It would be complex but Eurovision is complex sometimes. A good way to represent this is imagine the maximum gap is 15 places and a country gets 1st in Televote but 20th in Jury(or vise versa) so that country would then recieve points(either new points or from the countries place above/below it or those it passes on the way or all countries) to make it 16th in the Jury which is the bare minimum for it to be fair considering it got very high for one side of the contest. The system would work kinda like how Jury points are calculated but adjusted to a point system instead of the ranking system used for Juries
I remember the only televote time, and I do think juries have a place, but the way they give their scores should be different. They should have clearer instructions basically. Now the instructor are "rank these 26 songs in order based on single performance, based on these 4 criteria". That's a really big ask even from a group of professionals. Of course many of them will automatically default to basic pop that would slot in unnoticed on the top 40 radio they likely work for. While they push back the pure joke songs, they also stall innovation and experimentation. And that is starting to show. I think just making them either score or rank songs for each criteria separately and base the jury score on that composite would help. It would likely still produce different results than public, but at least then they would have the justification ready and they would also be pushed to give about equal weight to each criteria.
The problem is the juries doesn't give fair points depends on the voting system than they show on page or else. We would like to see the reason of juries of voting like that
I would prefer televote weight to be (somewhat) higher than jury weight exactly because of what was brought in this video: when the televote gaps among two or more entries are rather small the juries may step in to give their preference, think 2011 or 2019. I don't think the televote winner should always be the winner overall, but it def should when it's a landslide or is well valued with juries as well.
Finland was 4th with juries and 1st with televote, meanwhile Sweden was 1st with Juries and 2nd with televote. So you think Sweden's victory wasn't deserved? Also Sweden never finished in any countries bottom 5 (televote or jury) meanwhile Finland did.
@@yuijo2772 listen, what you might not understand is that the show has an audience to appeal to, some of them spend money on it even. the televote without a doubt has a bigger impact on the culture of the show than juries do. does that mean i think all televote winners should win the whole thing? no, it may well be the case the tele winner is not as broadly liked as the runner-up, that translates in a shorter point gap the juries can interfere in (that's where i mention 2019 as an example). but this is not the case for 2023, the televote winner won in half of the participating countries, averaging 10 points per country; the televote runner-up didn't win in a single country, and even if you look at the amount of 2nd placements Finland still outperformed Sweden. so when you mention Finland being in juries bottom 5, i honestly don't care. the contest's cultural relevancy in the XXI century does not rely on the jury, but on the audience, and when there's an audience winner as clear as this there is no doubt in my mind they should win the whole thing. but for the record i do think Loreen's performance was amazing and deserved to win the juries, but not with that gap.
@@anilatac488 Finland winning the televote with that gap doesn't mean that the public loved Finland way way more than any other song. It clearly shows that the televoting has problems. Paying around 1 euro per song is a lot of money for some people. And also let's not forget that a person can vote up to 20 times. So Finland winning with that huge gap shows that fans of that song were crazy about it that's why they voted that much. Meanwhile Sweden was still 2nd in televote, it has the same amount of views in youtube, it has 3 times more streams in spotify. You can not say that Sweden's song wasn't a deserved winner, just because your favourite didn't win. If you argue that the jury votes have problems, then also take in consideration that televote has also major problems. The fairest voting out would be 50/50 so hopefully it does not change.
@@yuijo2772 see, this is when discourse gets bastardized. the very same thing we complain about now can be applied to 2015 when sweden won over italy. even though i like heroes and don't care about grande amore, i think the latter should have won. this is not me complaining about my favorite not winning. for the record, i would believe tattoo winning wouldn't be as controversial if they had amassed a great amount of top 3 televote, but truth is in many countries they didn't even crack top 5. about televote system i agree, I think it could use a voting cap to allow fans to vote for someone other than a winner, but it's worth mentioning that the jury and televote landslides this year were most likely fueled by betting odds, so maybe fans wouldn't had voted so intensely if this hadn't been a two horse race competition, and other entries would've performed much better with tele. about streams, I don't see why it could be relevant, after all the esc and the charts are very different ways of consuming music, us fans know there are true gems that will never get as much streams as radio friendly or mainstream music.
@@anilatac488I mean…no one was really topping Finland in televotes, we all know that. But truthfully, if it was a close contender country like Italy or Israel that was in the spot of Sweden and ended up winning on a landslide from jury it’s not like that would be unfair. Finland got a landslide from the public but everyone used that as an excuse/defense rather than a way to support the fact that getting a landslide by jury is fair too. If a participant gets a landslide by jury and continues at getting on the podium with the second highest placement in public votes, then that should be justifiable. But if a participant gets a landslide in public votes and drops down below the top 3 podium and ends up getting 2nd overall it’s as if that’s just unbelievable despite it being quite fair and accurate. Televotes can be quite corrupt too, especially with people who actually bet on countries or just have a huge favoritism towards a specific country that they’ll vote as many times as they can just so their pick can get higher up. Not saying that’s what specifically happened with Finland but I’m sure a select few did do that.
I think arguing against 100% televote with: “Look at the 00s. That would be Eurovision again if juries are removed” is a super lazy and simplistic argument against removing the juries and is completely ahistorical when it comes to the contest. With decline in interest happening before the move to 100% televote and at the same time having many new countries joining changed the competition more. It lead to a situation where many countries didn’t get good applicants as Eurovision was seen as a reputation killer for many western artists and the block voting became a bigger issue. Sure the 00s made it worse but many of the problems with lack of interest started already during the 90s with 100% jury contests. And say what you want about the quality but watching many of the 90s contests is a massive snooze fest compared to the 00s. I prefer having juries in some fashion, but with many countries the jury does block voting just like televoters do. And the overall quality has risen a lot from the 90s and 00s as participating artists have enjoyed some success in getting recognition and being able to make money. So I personally don’t see reducing or even removing juries automatically leading to worse quality as long as the show stays interesting and attracts audiences. And big audiences attract performers and more performers leads to quality balanced with entertainment most of the time. And it’s good that more and more artists recognise that they don’t have to win as long as their product is good that they are bringing to the stage. It would be interesting know more details about the televoting statistics and how much money does that bring to the broadcasters. I wonder if this years results could impact people’s enthusiasm to use their money to vote if they feel like their vote doesn’t matter at the end. As so many broadcasters are having financial issues, every revenue source is important and without making audiences feel like they vote matters some countries might drop out quicker than otherwise they would’ve. I personally don’t want Eurovision to be just a small group of rich European countries bringing some bland pop acts that are high in quality. That is why EBU needs to either make changes to the way the jury operates or then reduce their impact as many people don’t seem to trust the juries being a fair part of the contest. If they do nothing, this can lead to less people being interested as they feel like their opinion doesn’t matter so why participate.
It's not so much that removing the juries would result in us reverting to the 2000s. No one knows with any certainty what a 100% televote grand final would look like nowadays because the world and the entertainment industry are so different. But what we do know is that the priorities would change, and that could only have a gradual effect on what kinds of creatives decide to get involved with the show.
Oh come on. The 100% televote era almost ruined completely the show. Not only because the neighbour-diaspora voting got its peak, it also took Eurovision to a point that countries sent whatever funny or silly act, even a puppet or non-singing characters from comedy shows. I think the victory of acts such as Loreen in 2012, made a before & after effect, and so on we've seen (arguably) more quality than before. Had Finland won this year, we'd see tons of similar acts in 2024 edition just to get high televote marks. IMHO, the rage is because the thing to do this year wasn't making Finland win, but making Sweden lose.
@@stu_makes_vids for me one of the main reason to move to a 50/50 voting system from the 100% televote seems to have been to damp down Russia and it’s popularity. There were other regional neighbour voting as well but block voting has lost some of it’s impact and most of the times though voting differently, some juries prefer voting neighbours quite often as well. Or like in 2017 when Portugals and Bulgarias juries didn’t give each other any points. Italys juries rarely give high scores to countries that are high in the odds which seems suspicious. My main point is that juries quite often seem to be as biased as the public and therefore EBU needs to perform some kind of changes to their system. I personally would prefer changes other than reducing the 50/50 system that would make juries more transparent that many other Eurovision vloggers have suggested like increasing juries and broadening their scope and perhaps rating based on each criteria rather than just giving their overall score. But if transparency is not the way to go, introducing a 60/40 or even a larger split is the next step before removing juries all together. Juries can benefit the competition but I think they haven’t shown in recent years that they give benefit the competition overall.
@@rafismusic didn’t say that block voting wasn’t a thing and it did dampen interest but the main problem of enthusiasm for Eurovision was in decline before 1998 when most countries adopted the 100% televote. When people lose interest, joke entries get through national finals a lot easier. And most winners between 1998-2008 weren’t joke entries and were clearly better than most. I would also like to point out that countries like Russia did put a lot of effort during this time as they recognised Eurovision to be a good way to improve their image and increase its cultural influence. And many countries did choose their acts in a televote during the national finals so in many ways it was the voters who didn’t take Eurovision seriously. Most established artists didn’t want to take part in Eurovision before 1998 as there was no benefit from spending time and effort compared to today. Saying that Eurovision was doing good until 1998 and then was shit for 10 years due to televote only is quite simplistic and ahistorical. EBU was very much stuck in their old ways before 1998 and tried to fix their issues with moving to the televote system in one big step not understanding the repercussions before getting pressured by Western European countries to adopt juries because with lack of interest the big 4 and other countries didn’t want to keep the competition going. The main reason for the improved quality post 2012 was that Loreen showed that Eurovision can be a platform for financial gains for pop acts. Eurovision before that didn’t really have current western popular music and was always at least 5-10 years behind musically. When it comes to televote scores in recent years with more televoters diaspora voting matters less but if fans feel like their voting doesn’t matter and juries giving the highest jury vote% of the jury total, diaspora voting will only gain power with the televote as they don’t care about performance but care more about voting for their own. I predict that Käärijä will influence next years artists a lot more than Loreen due to the fact it is easier to copy those elements without spending that much money. He did still get the second highest televote% of the total televote points available. There are rumours though that Conchita might try to represent Austria again and perhaps this will make other countries to try to bring back old successful acts though I don’t think they will be as successful as Loreen. But with many not liking the final score and with people believing in the jury rigging conspiracies flying around wonder if Swedens future artists could be harmed by the 2023 result. And just to be clear, my personal favourite to win this year was Spain with Armenia second. But I recognise that juries can dampen public interest as much if not even more when the shows results don’t align with a clear majority of the public support.
i actually love the quality of the 2000s esc more than anything else but i think it’s more a result of the time period than the voting system. still i think the 50/50 system should stay for the near future and juries should return to the semi, even though i hated tattoo
First top 6 or 7 from finals should be automacially qualified for finals next year, because today what's the difference ending up third or 13th. Also, exclude big 5 from directly getting finals
Nahh juries should be discarded completely. How can you blame the public for not choosing “quality” when music is after all made.. FOR the public and not 5 people from each country? ALSO as you mentioned, most of the times, the public and the juries agree, right? Also. Didn’t the public have Portugal first in 2017? Wasn’t Toy a better winner than Austria in 2018? Juries are corrupt most of the times anyway, with the perfect examples of 2022 semi finals, or they make mistakes like in 2019 which makes me think it’s ridiculous how much power a single person can hold. Didn’t 2023 feel like the swedish jury bribed everyone so that Sweden would always be first? The juries still had Finland second but with like, 200 points difference, come on. In the end Sweden barely won.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
I think for the televote, there needs to be a cap limit to how many votes you can allocate towards a song. I was thinking a maximum of five votes for country, so that other countries get the love.
Well, there is like a 20 limit on the app.
2008 was the climax of the joking entries. Almost half of the countries send things for non/eurofans to make (more) fun of Eurovision. I'm glad in 2009 juries returned and are still here. (You forgot even worse entries, like Estonia and Ireland 2008).
I can only agree.
And televote only made it so we got one of the worst winners too that year (believe is ass)
It was in the middle of the financial crisis and every country tried to send as ridiculous song as possible in order not to host. Also, Verka Serdushka came second the year prior, and we always have copycat entries of the successful acts the following year.
I think there is one piece thats easily forgotten in the Jury and Public split - The Jury votes and the Public votes are based from entirely separate performances. Theres been more than a few well known years where an act has suffered because of issues with their Jury perfomance (Notably Keiino).
With Keiino the issue was on the part of the production team so it wouldn't have been reflected in the score because that's not a fault of the delegation or performers. They also scored very similarly with the juries in both their semi final and final, so this is a myth.
@@stu_makes_vids I guess the Keiino one is but I still think theres some validity. If you compared the perfomance of Tattoo in the Semi finals to the Final, theres a significant difference. My point was more that two perfomances could be quite difference.
Probably a better example oddly would be SuRi's Storm - if you just compare vocals, performance etc before and after the stage invader incident. (Dont get me wrong, its still a weak song but theres a significant shift)
How dare you with Silvia Night? 😝 She was way ahead of the times 😢
The worst Icelandic entry 😂
Expanding the juries and making them match the age and genre of the performing artists and songs is a good first step. In addition, making the jurors explain their rankings based on the criteria would make the juries more transparent. The jury affair is next to opaque as is. After that we can start to talk about a possible shift in the public/jury split. Also, instead of the top 10, both the juries and the public should give points to more entries (eg. Lord of the Lost got a lot of 11th placements but ended up last). After all that, I'd be willing to make the split 2:1 but after the previous adjustments it won't be necessary in my opinion.
I agree 100%, the juries should be expended, maybe a demoscopic jury with 20 people, where all age groups, different genres, ethnicities, etc are being represented. And yes, the Top 15 need to receive points, it can't be the case that 15 or 16 countries aren't getting any points. And Germany, who in most cases finished neither in the Top 10, nor in the Bottom 10, probably would have gotten more points than the UK which had the highest number of last places in the televote. And this is also more reflective of the will of the people. Or or in other words, one country could be 11th to 15th (16th) everywhere and not get any points, while another country could be in the bottom 5 everywhere, except for their 2 or 3 voting buddies and is gonna get points, even though Europe in general perceived the song with 0 points much better.
Sweden wasn't the winner of the majority of jurors but they were never bottom 5 in any of the juror ranking, meanwhile Finland was. I don't understand how people can argue that it had to win compared to Sweden.
Because Finland is much more original. Sweden is a bland song.
@@TH2714Having a "much more original song" does not mean that the song is good. Serbia had a pretty much original song this year but it wasn't good.
@@TH2714 literally the only reason it's "OriGinAl" is Finnish language
Imo, 50/50 was already perfect, especially when it comes of professionality, also another fact, if you compare viewership between televote-only era and the time juries came back was very different, especially if you compare the ratings between 2008 and 2013???
Personally i believe that the public has a bigger power than the juries, when it comes to the winner, while the power of televote goes lower and lower. While the bottom 5 juries have the biggest power to me. Because juries tend to vote more homogeneously, their fav usually gets less points than the televote’s fav , with some exceptions. I think the voting system is okay, it only needs a reform of juries to be more representative
I think the 50/50 is the fairest we can ever get to. If people think that only jury voting has problem, I would argue that televote one has also problems. In the country that I live voting for a song is freaking expensive, it is 1 euro per each vote. A student like me with limited budget would never waste 20 euros to vote for his favourite entry. Meanwhile a person who has a lot of money and possess three sim cards can spend up to 60 euros and give a song 60 votes. Will this show what the majority of the public likes, hell no. Both Sweden and Finland have somehow the same number of views in youtube ( Sweden is far ahead in spotify). So in my opinion the gap in televote between both countries can be easily explained that it is Televoting problem. Sweden deserved the victory this year, but the toxic fans are the reason why you see people complaining.
True, ppl calling only the juries could "rigged", but ignores the fact that televotes was easier to "rigged" (especially within smaller countries), It's just simply many sim card and vote (plus call center services).
About the finnish excample of Looking back, english language, kinda safe choice vs. Cicciolina, the fun song in finnish, not your typical eurovision winner. 3 years have gone by, Cicciolina is still a well known song, Erika Vikman is making music and touring and the other song and the guy who sang it are nowhere to be seen.
I can hear english pop songs everywhere, only in ESC can I hear Ukraine folk inspired music or songs in moldovan language, that's why I watch the show, not to see and hear the jury pleasing safe songs that sound no different than whatever is on top of hit charts and in radio.
Old people also really hated Erika Vikman due to her dating Danny 75 old artist at the time and her dirty lyrics etc. Staging also was TERRIBLE at UMK, but UMK is known from bad staging. Vote was basically Erika vs anything else for some people
There is no such thing as Moldovan language. It’s Romanian!
yes yes and more yes!!!! NO TO 100% TELEVOTE!!! THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!
I don't trust televote either so
Wow, good for cherry picking a few joke entries from the 2000s to excuse the juries, completely ignoring all the great songs that won (Molitva, Hard Rock Hallelujah, My Number One, Wild Dances). Totally a great argument.
My suggestion would be to keep 12-1 for the jury but let the televote allocate 26-1. This way the EBU would give more say to the public overall while also better showcasing the preferences of the public in the midfield instead of giving 0 televote points to everyone outside of the public’s top 10.
I actually like this. Would bring a lot of excitement and movement and people would have the biggest say and the reward feeling and union as Eurovision should be about
Another way would be that televoters could rank their top 10 or top 5 instead of giving 20 votes to the same song.
@@nilerra8181 IMO increasing the power of the televote would reduce excitement because the televote is so much more predictable. So many people easily predicted 9 or all 10 qualifiers this year because it's so easy to see what the public will be drawn to. It takes away all the suspense and drama if we know the televote winner will almost certainly be able to overhaul the jury winner with their massive points total. The current system throws up many variables and avenues to win and that uncertainty creates excitement.
That's how it works in the Melodifestivalen grand final. We have about 7-8 Eurovision countries to give out point, meaning the viewers should've have more power. But that theroy is thrown out the window when you realize there are only 12 acts in the grand final. Loreen didn't even get 12 points from every jury, Croatia jury gave thier 12 points to Theoz.
@@everest938 Jury is as predictable as televote. And we saw it this year and that also killed all excitement. So it depends.
Conchita❤🇦🇹🇦🇹🇦🇹🇦🇹🇦🇹🇦🇹
I think that cicciolina would be like cha cha cha this year,maybe even worse with the juries but the televote would lift it up
Cicciolina didn't broke televote in UMK like Cha Cha Cha or Dark Side did.
And 2020 had Dadi, The Roop and Little Big.
Maybe a televote Top 10 but needed a better performance.
Juries would have probably destroyed it like Norway 2023/2019 tho
@@nilerra8181 dont forget she almost won OGAE second chance 2020
@@nou_9033 OGAE doesn't represent the public, it represents ESC superfans
@@nilerra8181 Cicciolina not doing well in televotes in UMK had much to do with part of the public hating Erika as a person. You know she was dating a 75+ year old artist. And UMK is known from ABSOLUTELY horrendous staging, see her staging at UMK compared to music video lol. Televote was basically young people vs old people
Erika wouldnt qualify but aksel would. Bc jury would like aksel’s song but noone would like cicciolina
There is also a problem with the public vote system since it takes the votes from a country and put them into points etc… this can result in quite misleading points.
Lets say there are three songs. Two of them are the favourites from the majority in a country but there is a fight between them two about the votes… then there is the third song which the majority hates but a “small” interest group loves it… this could get the 12 from that country even though most people hated it… and if the exact same scenario happens in more countries the numbers will be so off. This could for example be one entry being a very heavy and unique death metal song… the majority of people wouldn’t like it at all but death metal fans would love it.
Another thing that’s wrong with the public votes is that people’s second favourites basically disappears. Most people will only vote for their favourite… not their second or third favourites.
Let’s take a similar scenario again where everyone disagrees about which one of song 1 and 2 is the best… but everyone has song 3 as their second favourite… this song will disappear under the fight between the other two songs where 50% loves 1 and 50% loves 2… but obviously song 3 really deserves the point since 100% almost loves it…
Combine the two scenarios to get even more misleading points.
Ideal would be if everyone were encouraged to do like the jury. They have an amount of points to give and must divide them between the songs. This will give a lot more recognition to people’s second and third favourites.
Give every voter an app where they can rank their 10 favourites… or why not rank all entries
I think your examples of the 2000s are not really fair, its not like " be happy" escaped the bottom five and that island song didnt even qualify
It's not so much about the results being a problem. It's that the overall selection of songs changed since they prioritized spectacle over other factors.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
If you want to increase the quality of the songs participating in the finals, then the jury needs to be in the semifinals.
Letting the jury decide the overall winner does nothing to increase the overall quality.
you said it where and when? jeez! 😒
@@jayjayarray Elsewhere and at another time.
Kind of obvious isn't it?
@@Caldera01 nah not really
@@jayjayarray Ok, it was all in your imagination then.
I think internally changing juries (making the demographics of them more diverse and having 10 jurors instead of 5, for example) and making the guidelines less vague is a step in the right direction. This isn't just because of what happened this year (Loreen sadly got caught in the middle of it but it's not any fault of hers whatsoever), I personally think songs that aren't radio friendly pop get put at a disadvantage and could potentially lead to the contest getting less diverse with the type of songs sent. At the very least I hope one thing they change is not letting jurors be in the same room while watching the performances since that can lead to a lot of funny business.
Changing the point system should absolutely not happen. It's way too complicated and the way things are now is fine.
Hey Sarah! Have you seen the full video? We talk about expanding the jury there too! ruclips.net/video/bXXHOJXi708/видео.html
@@stu_makes_vids yes i did! great video too
wow, i'm very impressed by your video, mostly from quality montage, designs, animation - production overall. well done!
What is even that talking about how much televoting power some televoting winners would need to win the whole thing? People who want to reduce the jury power don't wanna change this power every year to make televoting winners always win, they just want a fixed lower percentage less than 50%. For me, 33% would be ideal (1/3, I mean). It's lower than 50/50 but higher that 25% that UMK uses. Under that system, Ukraine 2016 would still win over Russia 2016 and Netherlands 2019 over Norway 2019 too, and I don't mind it. The televoting margins between them were small enough (38 points in 2016 and 30 points in 2019), so juries with 33% would still overpower it. In case of the margin of 132 points in 2023, under this system, Finland would have won, this margin is too big to be overpowered by juries. Seems fair and not radical
How is it fair for songs that are totally underrated by the public? I really liked Estonia and Lithuania this year, but with a small jury % they would never even have the chance to get even close to the top 5-10. Also, let’s not forget that it would be unfair to have them at the beginning cause that’s a death spot with these conditions. Should we have all ballads at the end? No ballads? That’s terrible and it is against ESC’s idea of diversity.
Make the televote free, otherwise your points are invalid
wait, is Azerbaijan 2008 a troll entry now? I honestly think they have good singing skills😂
Those singing skills aren’t the mainstream type of singing and is therefore seen as novelty.
@@jbdloucks what a shame
you can say what you want about the 2000s but there were not bad winners, 2008 was weak in general and probably had the same winner with juries. And about the juries I think they should rework the way their rank works, not only the top gets points but everybody gets some points even if you are last on some juries ranking.
I don't disagree, but remember the point being made was the overall quality 😉
Personally I believe that the best way to make people more happy is to increase the jury count. This will result in a more diverse level of taste and it will reduce the impact in the unlikely event a juror is voting suspiciously, like in 2022.
Most Eurofans’ problem with the jury is that the jury’s ranking seems to reward conservative pop songs and punish more stand out songs. I believe that increasing the jury will combat that as it will increase diversity in taste.
25/75 system in UMK is completely useless and irrelevant at least in winner case, might as well being full televote. It affect only minor changes like last 3 places. YLE/UMK team is (still) too dumb and amateurish to realize that, when even succested EBU to modeling their system. 😆 30/70 was more sense.
I'm so tired of using the 00's Eurovision era as a proof that "we need juries". Do people really think that back then, some countries deliberately chose some songs considered by fans as "joke songs" endlessly keeping in mind that "it's 100% televoting, so we need to send something like this"? Imagine some country's jurors or televoters really thinking exactly like that. No, it was just a unique era in the world, in music and in Eurovision.
Also, when you just show some songs like Israel 2000, UK 2006, Latvia 2008, Spain 2008 in a row in defense of presence of juries, maybe you should also point out the actual 100% televoting scores of these songs, how well they really did with allegedly "public that likes only fun and games"? Then this argument becomes much weaker. Also, when talking about those years, maybe it's also good to consider the percentage of songs that might be considered as "joke" every year? It also won't be any high
I mean it’s not hard to put a bunch of jokes entries from those years cause the 2000’s were full of that. Lol
@@_o..o_1871 How many in %?
If it were up to me, I just wouldn't combine the jury votes and the televotes. At all. Yeah. Have two winners. Would have helped last year for sure.
I think the biggest problem with the Televote and Jury way is the big gaps that sometimes arise. I think a way to solve it is maybe choose a maximum place gap and a song that surpasses it gets recieve points to bring it to the maximum gap.
It would be complex but Eurovision is complex sometimes.
A good way to represent this is imagine the maximum gap is 15 places and a country gets 1st in Televote but 20th in Jury(or vise versa) so that country would then recieve points(either new points or from the countries place above/below it or those it passes on the way or all countries) to make it 16th in the Jury which is the bare minimum for it to be fair considering it got very high for one side of the contest.
The system would work kinda like how Jury points are calculated but adjusted to a point system instead of the ranking system used for Juries
My suggestion is to keep the votes at 50/50, but the jurors don't rank the songs. They do the regular points, and the ranking would be based on that. For example:
Austrian breakdown voting
Juror A:
12p - Sweden
10p - Portugal
8p - Montenegro
7p - Germany
6p - Greece
5p - Italy
4p - Estonia
3p - Ukraine
2p - Ireland
1p - Switzerland
Juror B:
12p - Ukraine
10p - Greece
8p - Sweden
7p - Switzerland
6p - Russia
5p - Montenegro
4p - Portugal
3p - Italy
2p - Ireland
1p - United Kingdom
Juror C:
12p - Spain
10p - Italy
8p - Switzerland
7p - Russia
6p - Ireland
5p - Sweden
4p - Norway
3p - Greece
2p - Georgia
1p - Montenegro
Juror D:
12p - Greece
10p - Russia
8p - Sweden
7p - Georgia
6p - Portugal
5p - United Kingdom
4p - Switzerland
3p - Germany
2p - Cyprus
1p - Estonia
Juror E:
12p - Montenegro
10p - Italy
8p - Spain
7p - Russia
6p - Switzerland
5p - Ireland
4p - Germany
3p - Portugal
2p - Norway
1p - Cyprus
Combined votes from jurors:
Cyprus - 3 points
Estonia - 5 points
Georgia - 9 points
Germany - 14 points
Greece - 31 points
Ireland - 15 points
Italy - 28 points
Montenegro - 26 points
Norway - 6 points
Portugal - 23 points
Spain - 20 points
Sweden - 33 points
Switzerland - 26 points
Russia - 30 points
Ukraine - 12 points
United Kingdom - 6 points
Overall Austrian jury ranking/points:
12p - Sweden (1st)
10p - Greece (2nd)
8p - Russia (3rd)
7p - Italy (4th)
6p - Montenegro (5th)
5p - Switzerland (5th)
4p - Portugal (7th)
3p - Spain (8th)
2p - Ireland (9th)
1p - Germany (10th)
0p - Ukraine (11th)
0p - Georgia (12th)
0p - United Kingdom (13th)
0p - Norway (13th)
0p - Estonia (14th)
0p - Cyprus (15th)
0p - 11 other finalists (16th)
I remember the only televote time, and I do think juries have a place, but the way they give their scores should be different. They should have clearer instructions basically. Now the instructor are "rank these 26 songs in order based on single performance, based on these 4 criteria". That's a really big ask even from a group of professionals. Of course many of them will automatically default to basic pop that would slot in unnoticed on the top 40 radio they likely work for. While they push back the pure joke songs, they also stall innovation and experimentation. And that is starting to show. I think just making them either score or rank songs for each criteria separately and base the jury score on that composite would help. It would likely still produce different results than public, but at least then they would have the justification ready and they would also be pushed to give about equal weight to each criteria.
The problem is the juries doesn't give fair points depends on the voting system than they show on page or else. We would like to see the reason of juries of voting like that
I would prefer televote weight to be (somewhat) higher than jury weight exactly because of what was brought in this video: when the televote gaps among two or more entries are rather small the juries may step in to give their preference, think 2011 or 2019. I don't think the televote winner should always be the winner overall, but it def should when it's a landslide or is well valued with juries as well.
Finland was 4th with juries and 1st with televote, meanwhile Sweden was 1st with Juries and 2nd with televote. So you think Sweden's victory wasn't deserved? Also Sweden never finished in any countries bottom 5 (televote or jury) meanwhile Finland did.
@@yuijo2772 listen, what you might not understand is that the show has an audience to appeal to, some of them spend money on it even. the televote without a doubt has a bigger impact on the culture of the show than juries do. does that mean i think all televote winners should win the whole thing? no, it may well be the case the tele winner is not as broadly liked as the runner-up, that translates in a shorter point gap the juries can interfere in (that's where i mention 2019 as an example). but this is not the case for 2023, the televote winner won in half of the participating countries, averaging 10 points per country; the televote runner-up didn't win in a single country, and even if you look at the amount of 2nd placements Finland still outperformed Sweden. so when you mention Finland being in juries bottom 5, i honestly don't care. the contest's cultural relevancy in the XXI century does not rely on the jury, but on the audience, and when there's an audience winner as clear as this there is no doubt in my mind they should win the whole thing. but for the record i do think Loreen's performance was amazing and deserved to win the juries, but not with that gap.
@@anilatac488 Finland winning the televote with that gap doesn't mean that the public loved Finland way way more than any other song. It clearly shows that the televoting has problems. Paying around 1 euro per song is a lot of money for some people. And also let's not forget that a person can vote up to 20 times. So Finland winning with that huge gap shows that fans of that song were crazy about it that's why they voted that much. Meanwhile Sweden was still 2nd in televote, it has the same amount of views in youtube, it has 3 times more streams in spotify. You can not say that Sweden's song wasn't a deserved winner, just because your favourite didn't win. If you argue that the jury votes have problems, then also take in consideration that televote has also major problems. The fairest voting out would be 50/50 so hopefully it does not change.
@@yuijo2772 see, this is when discourse gets bastardized. the very same thing we complain about now can be applied to 2015 when sweden won over italy. even though i like heroes and don't care about grande amore, i think the latter should have won. this is not me complaining about my favorite not winning. for the record, i would believe tattoo winning wouldn't be as controversial if they had amassed a great amount of top 3 televote, but truth is in many countries they didn't even crack top 5. about televote system i agree, I think it could use a voting cap to allow fans to vote for someone other than a winner, but it's worth mentioning that the jury and televote landslides this year were most likely fueled by betting odds, so maybe fans wouldn't had voted so intensely if this hadn't been a two horse race competition, and other entries would've performed much better with tele. about streams, I don't see why it could be relevant, after all the esc and the charts are very different ways of consuming music, us fans know there are true gems that will never get as much streams as radio friendly or mainstream music.
@@anilatac488I mean…no one was really topping Finland in televotes, we all know that. But truthfully, if it was a close contender country like Italy or Israel that was in the spot of Sweden and ended up winning on a landslide from jury it’s not like that would be unfair. Finland got a landslide from the public but everyone used that as an excuse/defense rather than a way to support the fact that getting a landslide by jury is fair too. If a participant gets a landslide by jury and continues at getting on the podium with the second highest placement in public votes, then that should be justifiable. But if a participant gets a landslide in public votes and drops down below the top 3 podium and ends up getting 2nd overall it’s as if that’s just unbelievable despite it being quite fair and accurate. Televotes can be quite corrupt too, especially with people who actually bet on countries or just have a huge favoritism towards a specific country that they’ll vote as many times as they can just so their pick can get higher up. Not saying that’s what specifically happened with Finland but I’m sure a select few did do that.
I think arguing against 100% televote with: “Look at the 00s. That would be Eurovision again if juries are removed” is a super lazy and simplistic argument against removing the juries and is completely ahistorical when it comes to the contest. With decline in interest happening before the move to 100% televote and at the same time having many new countries joining changed the competition more. It lead to a situation where many countries didn’t get good applicants as Eurovision was seen as a reputation killer for many western artists and the block voting became a bigger issue. Sure the 00s made it worse but many of the problems with lack of interest started already during the 90s with 100% jury contests. And say what you want about the quality but watching many of the 90s contests is a massive snooze fest compared to the 00s.
I prefer having juries in some fashion, but with many countries the jury does block voting just like televoters do. And the overall quality has risen a lot from the 90s and 00s as participating artists have enjoyed some success in getting recognition and being able to make money. So I personally don’t see reducing or even removing juries automatically leading to worse quality as long as the show stays interesting and attracts audiences. And big audiences attract performers and more performers leads to quality balanced with entertainment most of the time. And it’s good that more and more artists recognise that they don’t have to win as long as their product is good that they are bringing to the stage.
It would be interesting know more details about the televoting statistics and how much money does that bring to the broadcasters. I wonder if this years results could impact people’s enthusiasm to use their money to vote if they feel like their vote doesn’t matter at the end. As so many broadcasters are having financial issues, every revenue source is important and without making audiences feel like they vote matters some countries might drop out quicker than otherwise they would’ve. I personally don’t want Eurovision to be just a small group of rich European countries bringing some bland pop acts that are high in quality. That is why EBU needs to either make changes to the way the jury operates or then reduce their impact as many people don’t seem to trust the juries being a fair part of the contest. If they do nothing, this can lead to less people being interested as they feel like their opinion doesn’t matter so why participate.
It's not so much that removing the juries would result in us reverting to the 2000s. No one knows with any certainty what a 100% televote grand final would look like nowadays because the world and the entertainment industry are so different. But what we do know is that the priorities would change, and that could only have a gradual effect on what kinds of creatives decide to get involved with the show.
Oh come on. The 100% televote era almost ruined completely the show. Not only because the neighbour-diaspora voting got its peak, it also took Eurovision to a point that countries sent whatever funny or silly act, even a puppet or non-singing characters from comedy shows. I think the victory of acts such as Loreen in 2012, made a before & after effect, and so on we've seen (arguably) more quality than before. Had Finland won this year, we'd see tons of similar acts in 2024 edition just to get high televote marks. IMHO, the rage is because the thing to do this year wasn't making Finland win, but making Sweden lose.
@@stu_makes_vids for me one of the main reason to move to a 50/50 voting system from the 100% televote seems to have been to damp down Russia and it’s popularity. There were other regional neighbour voting as well but block voting has lost some of it’s impact and most of the times though voting differently, some juries prefer voting neighbours quite often as well. Or like in 2017 when Portugals and Bulgarias juries didn’t give each other any points. Italys juries rarely give high scores to countries that are high in the odds which seems suspicious.
My main point is that juries quite often seem to be as biased as the public and therefore EBU needs to perform some kind of changes to their system. I personally would prefer changes other than reducing the 50/50 system that would make juries more transparent that many other Eurovision vloggers have suggested like increasing juries and broadening their scope and perhaps rating based on each criteria rather than just giving their overall score. But if transparency is not the way to go, introducing a 60/40 or even a larger split is the next step before removing juries all together. Juries can benefit the competition but I think they haven’t shown in recent years that they give benefit the competition overall.
@@rafismusic didn’t say that block voting wasn’t a thing and it did dampen interest but the main problem of enthusiasm for Eurovision was in decline before 1998 when most countries adopted the 100% televote. When people lose interest, joke entries get through national finals a lot easier. And most winners between 1998-2008 weren’t joke entries and were clearly better than most. I would also like to point out that countries like Russia did put a lot of effort during this time as they recognised Eurovision to be a good way to improve their image and increase its cultural influence. And many countries did choose their acts in a televote during the national finals so in many ways it was the voters who didn’t take Eurovision seriously. Most established artists didn’t want to take part in Eurovision before 1998 as there was no benefit from spending time and effort compared to today. Saying that Eurovision was doing good until 1998 and then was shit for 10 years due to televote only is quite simplistic and ahistorical. EBU was very much stuck in their old ways before 1998 and tried to fix their issues with moving to the televote system in one big step not understanding the repercussions before getting pressured by Western European countries to adopt juries because with lack of interest the big 4 and other countries didn’t want to keep the competition going. The main reason for the improved quality post 2012 was that Loreen showed that Eurovision can be a platform for financial gains for pop acts. Eurovision before that didn’t really have current western popular music and was always at least 5-10 years behind musically.
When it comes to televote scores in recent years with more televoters diaspora voting matters less but if fans feel like their voting doesn’t matter and juries giving the highest jury vote% of the jury total, diaspora voting will only gain power with the televote as they don’t care about performance but care more about voting for their own.
I predict that Käärijä will influence next years artists a lot more than Loreen due to the fact it is easier to copy those elements without spending that much money. He did still get the second highest televote% of the total televote points available. There are rumours though that Conchita might try to represent Austria again and perhaps this will make other countries to try to bring back old successful acts though I don’t think they will be as successful as Loreen. But with many not liking the final score and with people believing in the jury rigging conspiracies flying around wonder if Swedens future artists could be harmed by the 2023 result.
And just to be clear, my personal favourite to win this year was Spain with Armenia second. But I recognise that juries can dampen public interest as much if not even more when the shows results don’t align with a clear majority of the public support.
Have you checked out the full video? We talk about those changes too: ruclips.net/video/bXXHOJXi708/видео.html
The end of the 2000s was the best of Eurovision (with 2021 and 2018). But to be fair, I love bops, gunny and dancy songs!
i actually love the quality of the 2000s esc more than anything else but i think it’s more a result of the time period than the voting system. still i think the 50/50 system should stay for the near future and juries should return to the semi, even though i hated tattoo
First top 6 or 7 from finals should be automacially qualified for finals next year, because today what's the difference ending up third or 13th. Also, exclude big 5 from directly getting finals
But look televote winners from last 10 years, they are better than juries
aksel is the best winner of umk. erika should learn to sing GOOO AKSEL
Excatly! It was slick, Erika was mess with bears rolling on stage.
Nahh juries should be discarded completely. How can you blame the public for not choosing “quality” when music is after all made.. FOR the public and not 5 people from each country? ALSO as you mentioned, most of the times, the public and the juries agree, right? Also. Didn’t the public have Portugal first in 2017? Wasn’t Toy a better winner than Austria in 2018? Juries are corrupt most of the times anyway, with the perfect examples of 2022 semi finals, or they make mistakes like in 2019 which makes me think it’s ridiculous how much power a single person can hold. Didn’t 2023 feel like the swedish jury bribed everyone so that Sweden would always be first? The juries still had Finland second but with like, 200 points difference, come on. In the end Sweden barely won.
Don’t get me wrong, Sweden is my personal winner, but I’ll always defend the public