This is just showing how Eurovision is a sham, The EBU just decide the winner anyways and we should pull out and not broadcast it. But no we won't because its cheap TV and it gets over 8m million viewers for some weird reason.
It's totally wrong that people who paid to vote didn't have their voices heard. If our jury chose Poland as the bottom and the uk televoting would make no difference whatsoever to Poland's score it should not have been possible to vote for Poland. Simple as that - those people were robbed.
Before the voting started they knew that a vote for Poland could make no difference to it getting a point from the UK. Yet they encouraged you to call for Poland. That must be contestable in court.
It's totally wrong that people who paid to vote didn't have their voices heard. If our jury chose Poland as the bottom and the uk televoting would make no difference whatsoever to Poland's score it should not have been possible to vote for Poland. Simple as that - those people were robbed.
Before the voting started they knew that a vote for Poland could make no difference to it getting a point from the UK. Yet they encouraged you to call for Poland. That must be contestable in court.
I think the juries should only choose there top 10 acts
It's totally wrong that people who paid to vote didn't have their voices heard. If our jury chose Poland as the bottom and the uk televoting would make no difference whatsoever to Poland's score it should not have been possible to vote for Poland. Simple as that - those people were robbed.
Before the voting started they knew that a vote for Poland could make no difference to it getting a point from the UK. Yet they encouraged you to call for Poland. That must be contestable in court.
The televote might have been enough to give points to Poland but it depends on how the other countries are ranked in the televote. No vote was a waste.
That was the 2009-2012 system. Both have their pros and cons. I'll trust in the EBU to decide on the best one.
Ah ok. So hopefully the EBU can come up with some (probably more complex) system that's between 12-10-8-...-0-0-0 and 26-25-24-...-3-2-1 that reduces the cons.
The televote might have been enough to give points to Poland but it depends on how the other countries are ranked in the televote. No vote was a waste.
Can you show mathematically how it would have been possible for an act that the jury had voted bottom to get any points from the UK?
so on that basis Poland with 26 pts would be 6th highest and score 5 points from the UK , so your arguement isnt true, and so OFCOM wouldnt do anything.
As Poland got the highest televote from the 3 with 26, it would get the 5 points.
Personally, I think it's a good system as long as it isn't abused to influence votes, and is truly a vote for best song/performance/vocals and staging (as per the direction)
As Poland got the highest televote from the 3 with 26, it would get the 5 points.
Personally, I think it's a good system as long as it isn't abused to influence votes, and is truly a vote for best song/performance/vocals and staging (as per the direction)
So we need 14 countries to tie in order for Poland to have got any points....... and you're saying that's a good system?
I didn't do the maths but my reading of it is that 4 countries finished above Poland and 2 tied. So on the example Poland would have received points.
I am sure there are problems with any system but the one used on Saturday is fine with me. I do think that Poland only topped the UK televote because of the immigrant Polish population, not because it was the best song. Of course if the jury had liked the song more they would have placed it higher and so it would have been easier for Poland to score from the UK. I think the UK jury scored it correctly.
was a possible way for Poland to get a single point without any ties anywhere on the board. Its basically impossible to find a system which you can't use to contrive a scenario that works badly. Meaning there will be no universally good system and people will continue to voice their displeasure when the voting system doesn't produce the results they are looking for.
I didn't do the maths but my reading of it is that 4 countries finished above Poland and 2 tied. So on the example Poland would have received points.
I am sure there are problems with any system but the one used on Saturday is fine with me. I do think that Poland only topped the UK televote because of the immigrant Polish population, not because it was the best song. Of course if the jury had liked the song more they would have placed it higher and so it would have been easier for Poland to score from the UK. I think the UK jury scored it correctly.
Technically untrue
It shares 6 place with 3 other countries - so how is it decided which country gets 5 points, which country gets 4 points & which country gets 3 points
Also who gets the remaining scores of 2 points & 1 point - since there are 6 countries with 27 points?
NO..you clearly dont acyually KNOW the rules that you are complaining about.
It doesnt share anything when its tied on points, because in that situation, the song higest in the public televote is ranked higher..so when a lot tied on 26 points Poland is ranked highest as it got the number 1 televote ranking..so it seems to me you are making a great deal of noise WHEN YOU DONT ACTUALLY KNOW THE RULES
It's totally wrong that people who paid to vote didn't have their voices heard. If our jury chose Poland as the bottom and the uk televoting would make no difference whatsoever to Poland's score it should not have been possible to vote for Poland. Simple as that - those people were robbed.
Before the voting started they knew that a vote for Poland could make no difference to it getting a point from the UK. Yet they encouraged you to call for Poland. That must be contestable in court.
I understand the consternation, but exactly how would it have been possible to stop people from voting for some countries, like Poland? Commentator telling viewers "sorry but there are a few other countries you can't vote for, apart from your own"..? That would have caused even more consternation...
In my opinion the one voted for the most by viewers (polish or not) gets the most points. These people have a right to have a preference for Poland and they had to pay to voice that preference but their money was wasted and they hadn't been informed that it was EXTREMELY likely to be a waste. In my opinion that should be illegal.
All they had to do was announce how the judges had ranked the acts. It may have stopped people picking up the phone for Poland and that is fairer than what happened.
The UK has never really voted for Poland that much in the past. 5 points in 2011 semi final, 4 points in 2008, 3 points in 2007. I'm not sure topping the televote was entirely down to Polish people living in the UK!
You voted knowing that the public is only half the vote. You want to be refunded because you didn't like the result....
Exactly this.
(And I even voted for Poland myself in the semifinal, so have absolutely nothing against it, I just don't really get all this whining about the result and juries this year...)
I didn't vite for anyone. I'm not even in Britain. The difference is the voters at home paid. They did it voluntarily while the jury were required to do it and they were paid to do it!
At least before the jury it was one country vs another. Now it seems to be one country vs their own jury! It seems an impossibility for your preference to win.
It's a totally unjust system that is not good for the voters and not good for eurovision. Anyone considering voting next year will be considering that the jury may have voted the song so low that their vote won't make any difference.
Your complaint is that 'everyone followed the rules as advertised - and that have been in place for previous years - and I didn't like the result.'
The only difference this year is that we get to see the detail.
There is no grounds for a complaint here.
The winner would still have been Austria under whatever voting system that has been proposed. And this is a winner-takes-all competition. The rest is only a matter of pride.
Everyone signs up for the competition knowing the voting rules. The voting rules were adhered to (and where they weren't, the votes were not counted)
Comments
Before the voting started they knew that a vote for Poland could make no difference to it getting a point from the UK. Yet they encouraged you to call for Poland. That must be contestable in court.
I think the juries should only choose there top 10 acts
The televote might have been enough to give points to Poland but it depends on how the other countries are ranked in the televote. No vote was a waste.
My mate voted for Poland in the semi...no connections whatsoever!
Ah ok. So hopefully the EBU can come up with some (probably more complex) system that's between 12-10-8-...-0-0-0 and 26-25-24-...-3-2-1 that reduces the cons.
Can you show mathematically how it would have been possible for an act that the jury had voted bottom to get any points from the UK?
As Poland got the highest televote from the 3 with 26, it would get the 5 points.
Personally, I think it's a good system as long as it isn't abused to influence votes, and is truly a vote for best song/performance/vocals and staging (as per the direction)
Thank You.
I didn't do the maths but my reading of it is that 4 countries finished above Poland and 2 tied. So on the example Poland would have received points.
I am sure there are problems with any system but the one used on Saturday is fine with me. I do think that Poland only topped the UK televote because of the immigrant Polish population, not because it was the best song. Of course if the jury had liked the song more they would have placed it higher and so it would have been easier for Poland to score from the UK. I think the UK jury scored it correctly.
Jury Rank + Televote Rank = Total Calculation Points. (Overall Rank, PointsAwarded) : Country
1 + 2 = 3 (1, 12) : Malta
2 + 3 = 5 (2, 10) : Finland
3 + 4 = 7 (3, 8) : Austria
4 + 5 = 9 (4, 7) : Spain
5 + 6 = 11 (5, 6) : Sweden
6 + 7 = 13 (6, 5) : Slovenia
7 + 8 = 15 (7, 4) : The Netherlands
8 + 9 = 17 (8, 3) : Azerbaijan
9 + 10 = 19 (9, 2) : Switzerland
10 + 20 = 30 (13, 0) : Russia
11 + 21 = 32 (15, 0) : Norway
12 + 22 = 34 (17, 0) : Hungary
13 + 23 = 36 (19, 0) : Denmark
14 + 24 = 38 (21, 0) : Greece
15 + 25 = 40 (23, 0) : Iceland
16 + 11 = 27 (11, 0) : Germany
17 + 12 = 29 (12, 0) : Italy
18 + 13 = 31 (14, 0) : Ukraine
19 + 14 = 33 (16, 0) : Belarus
20 + 15 = 35 (18, 0) : San Marino
21 + 16 = 37 (20, 0) : Montenegro
22 + 17 = 39 (22, 0) : Romania
23 + 18 = 41 (24, 0) : France
24 + 19 = 43 (25, 0) : Armenia
25 + 1 = 26 (10, 1) : Poland
was a possible way for Poland to get a single point without any ties anywhere on the board. Its basically impossible to find a system which you can't use to contrive a scenario that works badly. Meaning there will be no universally good system and people will continue to voice their displeasure when the voting system doesn't produce the results they are looking for.
I agree with your analysis
NO..you clearly dont acyually KNOW the rules that you are complaining about.
It doesnt share anything when its tied on points, because in that situation, the song higest in the public televote is ranked higher..so when a lot tied on 26 points Poland is ranked highest as it got the number 1 televote ranking..so it seems to me you are making a great deal of noise WHEN YOU DONT ACTUALLY KNOW THE RULES
All they had to do was announce how the judges had ranked the acts. It may have stopped people picking up the phone for Poland and that is fairer than what happened.
Exactly this.
(And I even voted for Poland myself in the semifinal, so have absolutely nothing against it, I just don't really get all this whining about the result and juries this year...)
At least before the jury it was one country vs another. Now it seems to be one country vs their own jury! It seems an impossibility for your preference to win.
It's a totally unjust system that is not good for the voters and not good for eurovision. Anyone considering voting next year will be considering that the jury may have voted the song so low that their vote won't make any difference.
The only difference this year is that we get to see the detail.
There is no grounds for a complaint here.
The winner would still have been Austria under whatever voting system that has been proposed. And this is a winner-takes-all competition. The rest is only a matter of pride.
Everyone signs up for the competition knowing the voting rules. The voting rules were adhered to (and where they weren't, the votes were not counted)
Get over it!