|
|
Post by Jan on May 27, 2015 2:59:22 GMT 1
So, I've counted the final results after the old 50/50 system (Final 2009-2012) and this is the outcome: I might do the same for the semi-finals  |
|
|
|
Post by Nutzername92a on May 27, 2015 4:11:05 GMT 1
So, I've counted the final results after the old 50/50 system (Final 2009-2012) and this is the outcome: I might do the same for the semi-finals Thanks for counting those results! To be honest, I think it just shows that the old system was better. Because first of all, it prevented countries better from getting 0 points. For example if a song convinced the jury OR the televoters, it was likely to get some points. But now you have to convince both, which only means that every country will vote for the same countries. And second of all, the old system was better because it was more in favour of the televoters. For example  Italy and  Albania did really well in the televoting, but the juries in many countries destroyed it for them for no legitimate reason. Those 5 people in each jury have way too much power and turn this contest into pure arbitrariness. You can't call it "Europe's favourite song" when the juries can completely kill the favourite of the viewers. Albania won the televote in Italy, so with televoting only they would have gotten  points. With the system from 2009-2012 they would have gotten  points. But with the current system they got  points. I can't describe how stupid that is. I absolutely hate it. |
|
1,942
5,805
Our first caress
|
Post by Mordecai on May 27, 2015 5:48:11 GMT 1
The ranking system is corrupt in a way because jury members can abuse their power. A jury member has a 10% influence on the final result, which is HUGE. They also have the opportunity to vote against songs. In the 2009-2012 way, you couldn't vote against songs, you could only vote for them. It's ridiculously corrupt because countries that have bad reputations around Europe could find themselves with bad results simply because jury members are biased. They need to add more jury members so one person doesn't have that much influence, and so countries that do really well in the televote/jury vote (last year's victim was  Poland, this year it was  Italy and  Albania, all three were favourites of mine so I'm not too happy  ) aren't slaughtered by the ranking system. It's also ridiculous to think that thousands of people spend their money on votes, yet one person can just undo all of that. These kind of things encourage people not to vote in the first place, because they are inclined to think that their vote will be meaningless. |
|
6,123
12,104
Fool me once, October Rain. Fool me twice, Hurricane
|
Post by Tufkai on May 28, 2015 23:15:52 GMT 1
So, I've counted the final results after the old 50/50 system (Final 2009-2012) and this is the outcome: I might do the same for the semi-finals How was the jury voting ranked out of curiosity? |
|
6,123
12,104
Fool me once, October Rain. Fool me twice, Hurricane
|
Post by Tufkai on May 28, 2015 23:21:40 GMT 1
The ranking system is corrupt in a way because jury members can abuse their power. A jury member has a 10% influence on the final result, which is HUGE. They also have the opportunity to vote against songs. In the 2009-2012 way, you couldn't vote against songs, you could only vote for them. It's ridiculously corrupt because countries that have bad reputations around Europe could find themselves with bad results simply because jury members are biased. They need to add more jury members so one person doesn't have that much influence, and so countries that do really well in the televote/jury vote (last year's victim was  Poland, this year it was Italy and Albania, all three were favourites of mine so I'm not too happy ) aren't slaughtered by the ranking system. It's also ridiculous to think that thousands of people spend their money on votes, yet one person can just undo all of that. These kind of things encourage people not to vote in the first place, because they are inclined to think that their vote will be meaningless. Why are the juries always blamed? The televoters dont even vote for songs half the time. The juries have to put together a full list while the televoters need only press a couple of buttons. Also, if it had been 100% televoting, Austria would have still got 0, while they would have been 13th under 100% jury. You call that too much power? |
|
1,942
5,805
Our first caress
|
Post by Mordecai on May 29, 2015 0:03:13 GMT 1
Also, if it had been 100% televoting, Austria would have still got 0, while they would have been 13th under 100% jury. You call that too much power? I'd rather millions of people give a song 0 points rather than 200 people place it 13th. Juries are there for a reason, but for 200 people to have a 50% stake in the final decision? Ridiculous. There need to be more jury members for the results to be justifiable... |
|
|
|
Post by Nutzername92a on May 29, 2015 2:07:03 GMT 1
The ranking system is corrupt in a way because jury members can abuse their power. A jury member has a 10% influence on the final result, which is HUGE. They also have the opportunity to vote against songs. In the 2009-2012 way, you couldn't vote against songs, you could only vote for them. It's ridiculously corrupt because countries that have bad reputations around Europe could find themselves with bad results simply because jury members are biased. They need to add more jury members so one person doesn't have that much influence, and so countries that do really well in the televote/jury vote (last year's victim was Poland, this year it was Italy and Albania, all three were favourites of mine so I'm not too happy ) aren't slaughtered by the ranking system. It's also ridiculous to think that thousands of people spend their money on votes, yet one person can just undo all of that. These kind of things encourage people not to vote in the first place, because they are inclined to think that their vote will be meaningless. Why are the juries always blamed? The televoters dont even vote for songs half the time. The juries have to put together a full list while the televoters need only press a couple of buttons.Also, if it had been 100% televoting, Austria would have still got 0, while they would have been 13th under 100% jury. You call that too much power? But that shows exactly why we need a change, don't you think? Back in the day, the song that had the most fans won. But now, with the current system, the song that has some fans and no dislikers wins. Having a lot of lovers is not enough anymore. The EBU should make better rules for that. Do we want that songs with many lovers win? Or do we want that songs with less dislikers win? The current system uses the first way for the televoters and the second way for the juries. That is dumb. Either let the televoters vote against songs, too. Or let the juries only vote for songs (like it was 2009-2012). But the current system is just mixed up and messed up. If I dislike a song, I want to be able to put it on 26th place, too. And if my whole country spends 123456789€ on voting for our "The Voice" winner, I want it at least to get a  point. (happened with to ) And about  Austria. Your example perfectly shows that the current system is stupid. The song was liked by many juries. So why does it end up with  points? I can only repeat: stupid. This is only because of the ranking system. In my opinion, if you convince in one discipline (jury or televote), you should get points for that. Even worse for  Germany. She scored in both disciplines. Still she gets points, although only 1 out of 40 countries put her last. Also, the intention was to make neighbour voting impossible. Needless to say, this didn't happen. In fact, the biggest profiteers were Ex-Yugo countries who got the largest amount of their points from other Ex-Yugo countries. |
|
6,123
12,104
Fool me once, October Rain. Fool me twice, Hurricane
|
Post by Tufkai on May 29, 2015 14:17:06 GMT 1
Why are the juries always blamed? The televoters dont even vote for songs half the time. The juries have to put together a full list while the televoters need only press a couple of buttons.Also, if it had been 100% televoting, Austria would have still got 0, while they would have been 13th under 100% jury. You call that too much power? But that shows exactly why we need a change, don't you think? Back in the day, the song that had the most fans won. But now, with the current system, the song that has some fans and no dislikers wins. Having a lot of lovers is not enough anymore. The EBU should make better rules for that. Do we want that songs with many lovers win? Or do we want that songs with less dislikers win? The current system uses the first way for the televoters and the second way for the juries. That is dumb. Either let the televoters vote against songs, too. Or let the juries only vote for songs (like it was 2009-2012). But the current system is just mixed up and messed up. If I dislike a song, I want to be able to put it on 26th place, too. And if my whole country spends 123456789€ on voting for our "The Voice" winner, I want it at least to get a  point. (happened with to ) And about  Austria. Your example perfectly shows that the current system is stupid. The song was liked by many juries. So why does it end up with points? I can only repeat: stupid. This is only because of the ranking system. In my opinion, if you convince in one discipline (jury or televote), you should get points for that. Even worse for  Germany. She scored in both disciplines. Still she gets points, although only 1 out of 40 countries put her last. Also, the intention was to make neighbour voting impossible. Needless to say, this didn't happen. In fact, the biggest profiteers were Ex-Yugo countries who got the largest amount of their points from other Ex-Yugo countries. You think the former Yugoslav countries are the worst? The juries of Slovenia and Montenegro did a decent job of not bloc-voting as far as I can see. Personally I think the biggest offenders are the CIS - Russia, Belarus, Georgia*, Armenia and Azerbaijan *I know Georgia left, but they're still part of that bloc |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 16:05:14 GMT 1
I just realised that  Da Da Dam (21st) got more points (57) than  Beauty Never Lies (10th, 53 points)  |
|
|
|
Post by Anesović on Jun 1, 2015 16:34:38 GMT 1
I just realised that  Da Da Dam (21st) got more points (57) than  Beauty Never Lies (10th, 53 points) I also find that really weird, but the top 9 mostly got points, who were also favorites, meanwhiles the other were given to the other 16 entries. I really want a year were every country gets a little bit of points. 2014 & 2015 was mostly a year where the favorite gets top points  |
|
