Eurovision Song Contest 2025 in Basel, Switzerland

[AyeshaErotica 1,381]

Hey guys,

we need to discuss something important and this is fairness.

As we know, there are televoting public favorite songs and jury favorite songs ; songs that score well within one camp but underperform in the other camp; both theoretically weight 50%. Some music experts claim that the new voting system [no jury voting in smei-finals anymore] is skewed in favor of one the jury favorite songs winning the ESC and that their power through song selection distortion is greather than 50%.

Music expert Stober says:

"These last two years have been a little different, something fundamental: namely that there are no juries in the semi-finals. In other words, my theory is that the final is flooded with songs that are good in the televoting. There won't be much left for the jury to like. That means that all the jury points go to very few songs. That's why I believe that televoting songs will have an extremely difficult time in the future if it stays that way, that the juries don't vote in the semi-finals."

https://www.merkur.de/tv/contest-ergebnisse-esc-update-nemo-baby-lasagna-jury-publikum-podcast-eurovision-song-93080541.html

https://www.ndr.de/ndrblue/Kann-der-Publikumsfavorit-ueberhaupt-noch-den-ESC-gewinnen,audio1637084.html

The fact that the juries do not vote in the semi-finals means that fewer jury favourites make it through to the final, and a disproportionately high number of televoting audience favourites. In the final, the televoting audience favourites then fight each other for attention and steal each other's attention, and because there are a disproportionate number of them, the votes are spread over several. With the jury favourites, on the other hand, there are fewer selections and the most popular jury favourite therefore has a statistically higher probability of achieving more total points than the audience favourite, as it has less competition within the juries. The result is that statistically, jury favourites have a higher chance of winning. In the future, jury favourites in particular will win.

Since the re-introduction of juries in 2009, Nemo's Code has been the worst-scoring song among the televoting audience (5th) to win but the song managed nevertheless to win  because of the skewed system where many jury points go to a disproportionately smaller selection of songs, he ultimately won.

Between 2009 and 2024, every song that won was either #1 or #2 among the general televoting audience (except for year 2015 with Sweden, which was #3), but since the system was changed recently and jury favorites have a statistically higher chance to win, Nemo won while only being the 5th most liked song by the public.

In my opinion, the new system is unfair, skewed and should be changed back to the old system, where juries vote also in the semi-finals to ensure fairness. The ESC has become grossly unfair with the new system.

What is your opinion on that?

@Dutch @River@chathonnete @palma@Max@calmar@PartySick@SwissMonster@Pennywise@itsalice@Head Empty@bionic@Ororo Munroe

@ Everyone in this topic.

 

 

[Juanlittlem 41,202]

9 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

The fact that the juries do not vote in the semi-finals means that fewer jury favourites make it through to the final, and a disproportionately high number of televoting audience favourites. In the final, the televoting audience favourites then fight each other for attention and steal each other's attention, and because there are a disproportionate number of them, the votes are spread over several. With the jury favourites, on the other hand, there are fewer selections and the most popular jury favourite therefore has a statistically higher probability of achieving more total points than the audience favourite, as it has less competition within the juries. The result is that statistically, jury favourites have a higher chance of winning. In the future, jury favourites in particular will win.

This makes no sense tho' if you check years where juries where still in the semi you'll see juries and televote mostly agree in the qualifiers, even if it isnt 100% on the placements, qualifiers are almost the same for televoters than for juries

[itsalice 507]

14 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

Hey guys,

we need to discuss something important and this is fairness.

As we know, there are televoting public favorite songs and jury favorite songs ; songs that score well within one camp but underperform in the other camp; both theoretically weight 50%. Some music experts claim that the new voting system [no jury voting in smei-finals anymore] is skewed in favor of one the jury favorite songs winning the ESC and that their power through song selection distortion is greather than 50%.

Music expert Stober says:

"These last two years have been a little different, something fundamental: namely that there are no juries in the semi-finals. In other words, my theory is that the final is flooded with songs that are good in the televoting. There won't be much left for the jury to like. That means that all the jury points go to very few songs. That's why I believe that televoting songs will have an extremely difficult time in the future if it stays that way, that the juries don't vote in the semi-finals."

https://www.merkur.de/tv/contest-ergebnisse-esc-update-nemo-baby-lasagna-jury-publikum-podcast-eurovision-song-93080541.html

https://www.ndr.de/ndrblue/Kann-der-Publikumsfavorit-ueberhaupt-noch-den-ESC-gewinnen,audio1637084.html

The fact that the juries do not vote in the semi-finals means that fewer jury favourites make it through to the final, and a disproportionately high number of televoting audience favourites. In the final, the televoting audience favourites then fight each other for attention and steal each other's attention, and because there are a disproportionate number of them, the votes are spread over several. With the jury favourites, on the other hand, there are fewer selections and the most popular jury favourite therefore has a statistically higher probability of achieving more total points than the audience favourite, as it has less competition within the juries. The result is that statistically, jury favourites have a higher chance of winning. In the future, jury favourites in particular will win.

Since the re-introduction of juries in 2009, Nemo's Code has been the worst-scoring song among the televoting audience (5th) to win but the song managed nevertheless to win  because of the skewed system where many jury points go to a disproportionately smaller selection of songs, he ultimately won.

Between 2009 and 2024, every song that won was either #1 or #2 among the general televoting audience (except for year 2015 with Sweden, which was #3), but since the system was changed recently and jury favorites have a statistically higher chance to win, Nemo won while only being the 5th most liked song by the public.

In my opinion, the new system is unfair, skewed and should be changed back to the old system, where juries vote also in the semi-finals to ensure fairness. The ESC has become grossly unfair with the new system.

What is your opinion on that?

@Dutch @River@chathonnete @palma@Max@calmar@PartySick@SwissMonster@Pennywise@itsalice@Head Empty@bionic@Ororo Munroe

@ Everyone in this topic.

 

 

I mean, in the first place, the jury's vote never even made sense?  How can the vote of a couple of jury members from each country override the millions of audience people who vote?  It's simply not possible and that's why it's unfair to have voting juries at all and it should be abolished and leave only audience voting. 

[SwissMonster 28,586]

31 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

Hey guys,

we need to discuss something important and this is fairness.

As we know, there are televoting public favorite songs and jury favorite songs ; songs that score well within one camp but underperform in the other camp; both theoretically weight 50%. Some music experts claim that the new voting system [no jury voting in smei-finals anymore] is skewed in favor of one the jury favorite songs winning the ESC and that their power through song selection distortion is greather than 50%.

Music expert Stober says:

"These last two years have been a little different, something fundamental: namely that there are no juries in the semi-finals. In other words, my theory is that the final is flooded with songs that are good in the televoting. There won't be much left for the jury to like. That means that all the jury points go to very few songs. That's why I believe that televoting songs will have an extremely difficult time in the future if it stays that way, that the juries don't vote in the semi-finals."

https://www.merkur.de/tv/contest-ergebnisse-esc-update-nemo-baby-lasagna-jury-publikum-podcast-eurovision-song-93080541.html

https://www.ndr.de/ndrblue/Kann-der-Publikumsfavorit-ueberhaupt-noch-den-ESC-gewinnen,audio1637084.html

The fact that the juries do not vote in the semi-finals means that fewer jury favourites make it through to the final, and a disproportionately high number of televoting audience favourites. In the final, the televoting audience favourites then fight each other for attention and steal each other's attention, and because there are a disproportionate number of them, the votes are spread over several. With the jury favourites, on the other hand, there are fewer selections and the most popular jury favourite therefore has a statistically higher probability of achieving more total points than the audience favourite, as it has less competition within the juries. The result is that statistically, jury favourites have a higher chance of winning. In the future, jury favourites in particular will win.

Since the re-introduction of juries in 2009, Nemo's Code has been the worst-scoring song among the televoting audience (5th) to win but the song managed nevertheless to win  because of the skewed system where many jury points go to a disproportionately smaller selection of songs, he ultimately won.

Between 2009 and 2024, every song that won was either #1 or #2 among the general televoting audience (except for year 2015 with Sweden, which was #3), but since the system was changed recently and jury favorites have a statistically higher chance to win, Nemo won while only being the 5th most liked song by the public.

In my opinion, the new system is unfair, skewed and should be changed back to the old system, where juries vote also in the semi-finals to ensure fairness. The ESC has become grossly unfair with the new system.

What is your opinion on that?

@Dutch @River@chathonnete @palma@Max@calmar@PartySick@SwissMonster@Pennywise@itsalice@Head Empty@bionic@Ororo Munroe

@ Everyone in this topic.

 

 

Definitely an interesting point BUT I don‘t think it is unfair after thinking about it a bit.

Nemo didn‘t win because of that effect tbh. They just did really really well with Jury. Its the most 12 points someone ever got from jury. They still had a high Televote too, yes they were 5th (only 1 single point behind 4th) but still a high score. 
 

Also if we take both years as an example its proofs even more that this narrative is wrong. Finland came in 2nd and was reallyyyy close point wise. Actual proof that either can win really. Same with Croatia, they came second, and weren‘t THAT far away from Switzerland either. And Croatia was good in jury too btw.
 

There are years that just have more jury friendly songs and years that have more televote friendly songs. And obviously some cancel eachother out, jury or televote friendly songs.

In the end, thats the challenge of Eurovision. It never was about the most popular song, but the BEST song. Hence why Jury exists, otherwise we could just have a popularity vote. 
 

Also as @Juanlittlem said, it doesn’t change a lot anyways as they were always almost the same top 10 in semis

[Hyperobject 66,766]

don’t mean to sound mean, but I’m so glad we have juries now, because the last few popular vote winners were BAD lmao

didn’t Portugal won with sweeping both jury and popular vote? and Italy won without being the jury’s favorite 

also, it’s possible to win without getting a lot of jury points, we saw that happen in 2022

the jury plays a big role in making Eurovision feel like a music contest imo, because without them we would mostly get meme songs winning every year lol 

Edited May 29 by Ororo Munroe

[Ivannn 1,075]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

Hey guys,

we need to discuss something important and this is fairness.

As we know, there are televoting public favorite songs and jury favorite songs ; songs that score well within one camp but underperform in the other camp; both theoretically weight 50%. Some music experts claim that the new voting system [no jury voting in smei-finals anymore] is skewed in favor of one the jury favorite songs winning the ESC and that their power through song selection distortion is greather than 50%.

Music expert Stober says:

"These last two years have been a little different, something fundamental: namely that there are no juries in the semi-finals. In other words, my theory is that the final is flooded with songs that are good in the televoting. There won't be much left for the jury to like. That means that all the jury points go to very few songs. That's why I believe that televoting songs will have an extremely difficult time in the future if it stays that way, that the juries don't vote in the semi-finals."

https://www.merkur.de/tv/contest-ergebnisse-esc-update-nemo-baby-lasagna-jury-publikum-podcast-eurovision-song-93080541.html

https://www.ndr.de/ndrblue/Kann-der-Publikumsfavorit-ueberhaupt-noch-den-ESC-gewinnen,audio1637084.html

The fact that the juries do not vote in the semi-finals means that fewer jury favourites make it through to the final, and a disproportionately high number of televoting audience favourites. In the final, the televoting audience favourites then fight each other for attention and steal each other's attention, and because there are a disproportionate number of them, the votes are spread over several. With the jury favourites, on the other hand, there are fewer selections and the most popular jury favourite therefore has a statistically higher probability of achieving more total points than the audience favourite, as it has less competition within the juries. The result is that statistically, jury favourites have a higher chance of winning. In the future, jury favourites in particular will win.

Since the re-introduction of juries in 2009, Nemo's Code has been the worst-scoring song among the televoting audience (5th) to win but the song managed nevertheless to win  because of the skewed system where many jury points go to a disproportionately smaller selection of songs, he ultimately won.

Between 2009 and 2024, every song that won was either #1 or #2 among the general televoting audience (except for year 2015 with Sweden, which was #3), but since the system was changed recently and jury favorites have a statistically higher chance to win, Nemo won while only being the 5th most liked song by the public.

In my opinion, the new system is unfair, skewed and should be changed back to the old system, where juries vote also in the semi-finals to ensure fairness. The ESC has become grossly unfair with the new system.

What is your opinion on that?

@Dutch @River@chathonnete @palma@Max@calmar@PartySick@SwissMonster@Pennywise@itsalice@Head Empty@bionic@Ororo Munroe

@ Everyone in this topic.

 

 

I would abolish jury vote completly! It is simply not fair system and it happens very often that public is ignored with their votes due to jury concetraring Many points around few songs. Every year they say that public is the one that decides the winner but it is very rear.

[Head Empty 24,221]

Stober has a point.

I think the jury vote is still important to make sure that the contest doesn't get swamped with joke entries that are trying to win off of gimmicks alone - which was a real problem in the past. But there needs to be balance and understanding.

As a viewer, we barely know anything about the jury, which makes it easy to "blame" them when we don't like the result. They're this anonymous, powerful force that we can't relate to.

Something I thought of now: let the juries consist previous contenders from their respective countries. And show us more of their process. Include interviews with them during the live show. Talk us through their thoughts and add some credibility to their scoring. Make them human.

[Juanlittlem 41,202]

5 minutes ago, Head Empty said:

And show us more of their process. Include interviews with them during the live show. Talk us through their thoughts and add some credibility to their scoring. Make them human.

And this would make a 4 hour show into a 9 hour show, this aint doable.

[Head Empty 24,221]

21 minutes ago, Juanlittlem said:

And this would make a 4 hour show into a 9 hour show, this aint doable.

Well they wouldn't need to interview every single one

Make it a few little segments 1-2 minute segments. Or maybe work it into the postcards, where the jury explains what their country values in Eurovision. A little goes a long way.

[Max 19,734]

Im not reading all that

[SwissMonster 28,586]

3 hours ago, Ivannn said:

I would abolish jury vote completly! It is simply not fair system and it happens very often that public is ignored with their votes due to jury concetraring Many points around few songs. Every year they say that public is the one that decides the winner but it is very rear.

Please, thats a straight up lie, the last Jury Overall Winner before Loreen (second in televote too) and Nemo was in 2017. Also in the last 10 years only 4 Jury winners (Conchita not counted since she won televote too) won.

Edited May 29 by SwissMonster

[AyeshaErotica 1,381]

12 hours ago, itsalice said:

I mean, in the first place, the jury's vote never even made sense? 

They had a purpose and they fullfilled their purpose, but do they have a purpose still?

The only reason why juries were introduced in and since 2009 was to diminish the winning chances of the ideological enemies of the European Union, namely Russia, Turkey and Serbia, who previously won the contest and have large migrant communites in the West, that helped them during televoting. After Russia won in 2008, the Big 5 had a secret meeting with the topic: "How can we achieve it and make it impossible that Russia will win again?"

And then the juries re-appeared. In 2016, Russia won the televoting ahead of Ukraine and Australia but because of the jury voting, Ukraine won.  You know, the ESC is financed by the Big 5 and they didn't want to see Russia, Turkey and Serbia winning, using their money.

Now, two of the three ideological enemies are gone (Russia and Turkey) and not participating in the contest anymore and the main justification for the jury's re-intorduction is practically gone. Ironically, the juries will stay even though Russia and Turkey are no more in it.

Edited May 30 by Okinawa

[Dutch 88,712]

That country got confirmed for 2025. Nothing changed. Think I might skip this year actually.

[AyeshaErotica 1,381]

We ve been waiting a year,

now the moment is near

all my single ladies

wait for the highlight of the show

when Martin licks his lips and says

youre good to go

he has no time for blablabla

lights camera action

 

Lynda Woodruff has been singing an interlude during the Swedish hosting, and a proper full song has been released, that is a bit longer than the ESc interlude:

 

Can we all bow down and praise this song?

I really love it

It was one of the highlgihts of the show, funny, lovely cute, rap-like, powerful, dancey, this song has everything the ESC stands for. Tbh, if this song was callable, I'd have been calling for it .

 

The interlude was imo among the Top 4 songs of the ESC and it wasnt an official country song even  , lynda rules !!!

[Dutch 88,712]

So, if nothing changes NL might very likely be out.

https://www.avrotros.nl/article/update-avrotros-met-betrekking-tot-het-eurovisie-songfestival~576/