VOTING ANALYSIS
VOTING ANALYSIS
SPAIN
IRELAND
ALBANIA BELGIUM
to the likes of Ireland, Spain and Portugal, while other countries with large diasporas outside Europe were also expected to benefit. Some even suggested Australia could profit from people in New Zealand voting, although this argument probably did not take into account the rivalry between the two nations. In the end the RoW voters awarded their points as shown below. Generally, the RoW voting seems to have reflected the various organised diasporas around the world. Countries like Israel, Armenia and Albania seem to be particularly effective at mobilising their overseas communities. It must also be remembered that the RoW vote provided a forum for voters in countries like Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovakia and Kosovo which border participating countries and sometimes share ethnic communities. Countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Spain with large diasporas or related
populations but which seem less able to mobilise these communities did less well. The addition of the RoW vote seems unnecessary and yet another example of the EBU’s obsession with trying to widen the contest’s appeal beyond Europe and participating countries. It also served to further reinforce the diaspora voting just as the abolition of the semi-final juries removed the only counterbalance to such votes. Given the ever-growing popularity of the contest and its status as the world’s premier live music competition, it is strange that the EBU seems to be constantly looking for ways to further increase viewership while risking the intrinsic Europeanness of the contest which must be one of its core strengths. This very much seems to be a case of ‘if it ain’t broke, why fix it’ but the EBU (and SVT) will no doubt come up with yet more ‘improvements’ next year.
END OF THE JURIES? After the infamous “voting irregularities” last year, it was perhaps unsurprising that the EBU and Contact Group decided to abolish the juries as part of the main voting for the semi-finals this year. Many fans have taken this as an indication that the juries’ days are numbered but that may not be the case. The juries are there for a reason and fulfil a very important purpose. They act as a vital counterweight to diaspora/neighbour voting as well as being a brake on novelty or comedy acts. Without the juries there would be a very serious risk of a rush to the bottom, with countries entering populist acts or employing increasingly ridiculous stagings designed to attract votes like internet click bait. Supervision The current 50/50 system has served the contest well and the juries help to maintain the standard of the songs entered, even if it is frustrating that the “people’s favourite” does not always win. Clearly the juries are only as good as the jury members, and there is certainly a case for increasing the size of juries and having additional supervision and oversight, but the EBU will hopefully approach any further changes very carefully. They may prefer to instead consider having a separate trophy for the public vote winner or tweaking the voting system so that no country (or artist) faces the humiliation of nul point.
LANGUAGE DIVERSITY The level of language diversity seems to have remained fairly constant with ten of this year’s finalists sung in a native language (12 if we include the UK and Australia). This is very much in line with last year. Only two of the Top Ten were sung entirely in a native language, well down on last year. Interestingly, however, all the non- qualifiers were sung in English. Given that the contest was being staged in the UK for the first time in a quarter century, and that the host city was the home of the Beatles, it was perhaps to be expected that English would dominate, but foreign languages are thankfully still very much in evidence. Perhaps the EBU could consider a one year-only return to the language rule when the contest reaches its 70th anniversary. Liverpool was definitely one of the best organised, best staged and best hosted contests ever. The line up of songs may not have been the greatest, but the top two places were taken by songs that have already proved to be commercial successes and which seemed destined to become future Eurovision classics. (See over for full Grand Final Jury and televote voting.)
SF1
SF2
GRAND FINAL
12 points 10 points 8 points 7 Points 6 points 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point
Israel Finland Latvia Sweden Portugal Czechia Moldova Croatia Slovenia
Albania Armenia Austria Australia Slovenia Belgium Lithuania Iceland Estonia Georgia
Israel Finland Armenia Sweden Albania Ukraine Norway Croatia Spain France
Malta
VISION ● AUTUMN 2023 57
56
AUTUMN 2023 ● VISION
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker