Credits
Written by
Published
Source(s)
News
© esctoday.com
Have your say!
Political, neighbourly or Diaspora Voting?
1980S, SCANDINAVIA, GREECE, CYPRUS AND NEIGHBOURLY VOTING?
Many people now see the competition as several groups of neighbouring countries pooled together to vote for one another. In the 1980s, fingers were pointed at the Scandinavians, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and since 1986, Iceland. At the time, this was the 'largest' block in the competition, however in the 1980s, only Sweden (1984) and Norway (1985) won the contest. During the same decade, Finland twice finished last (1980, 1982), the second time with 'nul points'. Norway finished last in 1981 and Iceland did the same in 1989.
Of course, it would be wrong to discuss neighbourly voting without mentioning the topic that brings United Kingdom commentator, Terry Wogan to his knees every year. The only thing as predictable as hearing Te Deum at the beginning of a Eurovision Song Contest broadcast, is hearing the Greek result 'Cyprus 12 points' and a reciprocating 'Greece 12 points' from Cyprus.
1990S: FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FORMER SOVIET STATES
Then the division of Yugoslavia and Balkan wars happened, and suddenly Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, FYR Macedonia, Serbia Montenegro (which are now independent countries and highly likely to compete individually in 2007) seem to be the closest of allies at the Eurovision Song Contest. Many see Greece and Albania as part of the new Balkan Block. The shared votes have yet to produce a winner - except for an argument that the block includes close neighbour Greece, in which case, the votes helped Helena Paparizou to victory in 2005.
2000S: THE FORMER SOVIET SUCCESS STORY:
The 2000s brought a flood from the East to the Eurovision Song Contest. The arrival of the Baltic trio of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, each tending to vote closely for one another. Russia joined the Eurovision Song Contest, inviting votes from the Baltic states, and then enjoying the arrival of Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and last year, Armenia. They may also be joined in 2007 by Georgia and Azerbaijan. Estonia and Latvia (2001 and 2002) have both won the competition, and were joined by Ukraine in 2005, in only their second participation at the competition. This group has so far proved to be the most successful of the so-called neighbourly blocks.
THE MOVE TO DIASPORA VOTING
Simply looking at the neighbourly or political voting does not tell the full story. In the age of the European Union, borders are open and many communities have spread around the continent. Armenia won votes from only 17 countries in their debut year, yet they finished higher than countries such as Greece and Ireland who received votes from 22 and 23 countries respectively. Armenia received the maximum 12 points from neighbours Russia, but also scored high marks from Belgium (12), France, Netherlands, Greece (10), Israel and Spain (8), where there are exceptionally large Armenian populations.
This has led to the growth in talk of 'diaspora voting', it refers to the tendancy for large immigrant populations throughout Europe voting for their homeland. Turkey and Armenia are prime examples of countries that benefit from Diaspora voting. Germany awarded Turkey 44 out of a maximum 48 points in the last four years, with 12 points in 2004 and 2006, and 10 points in 2003 and 2005. Germany has an exceptionally large Turkish population which makes the likelihood of Germany awarding top marks to their homeland as likely as a top-mark exchange between Greece and Cyprus. Belgium and the Netherlands have also been awarding high marks to Turkey in recent years, as they see a steady rise in their Turkish immigrant population.
Israel, who finished in 4th place in 2005, scored only 4 points in 2006, all of which came from France, where there is a Jewish population of approximately 1million, far and away the largest jewish population in Europe after Israel. Without this population, would Israel have received the dreaded 'nul points' for the first time in 2006?
HAVE YOUR SAY
Do you think that neighbourly, political or diaspora voting has been increasing in recent years?
What can be done to reduce the effect of this voting in order to increase the fairness of the competition?
Related polls
- Should esctoday.com end coverage of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest?
- Who should replace Terry Wogan as UK commentator?
Go directly to the reactions
Reactions
When reacting to a news item, please stick to the topic. Inappropriate messages (swearing, racism, hate, etc.), messages in other languages than English and spam (which includes URL advertising) will be deleted and you risk your account being removed. Reacting on newsitems is only possible when logged in as a member. Still don't have member account?
Click here to react Click here to become a member (free!)
Well... this year there are going to be more nighbour/diaspora votes... Andorra will give 12 points to Spain. Greece and Cyprus 12 eachother (if Cyprus qualifies to the Final). Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium... high points to Armenia and Turkey, and the same with Spain to Romania and Portugal to Ukraine. Tha balkan block is now more active than ever, with the independence of Serbia and Montenegro and the entrance of Bulgaria. This block will be the biggest: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, FYR Macedonia, Greece and Montenegro. Also 12 reciproc votes from Romania to Moldova. Russia will be very graced with the votes from the Baltic republics, Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine, Armenia and, this year, Georgia. I supose that Georgia and Armenia will change points between them too. Another possible case of neighbouring voting can be Poland - Czech Republic or Austria - Czech Republic. About the north... Alliance between Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, and possibly Estonia and Latvia too. Also the combinations Belarus - Poland, Belarus - Ukraine, Poland - Ukraine, etcetera.
It's true that neighbouring and diaspora voting doesn't affect directly the winner (Finland last year, for example), but it can repercute a lot in the countries of the Semifinal: western Europe will remain there.
The problem is that because of neighbouring, one country can vote ONLY to their neighbours, for example...
Example of an hipothetic votation from Serbia.
12 p to Greece
10 p to Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 p to FYR Macedonia
7 p to Slovenia
6 p to Montenegro
7 p to Croatia
6 p to Bulgaria
5 p to Hungary (hungarian minority in Vojvodina)
4 p to Romania
3 p to Russia (sympathy between the two countries)
2 p Albania
There will be just 1 point free!!
Do you know what would stop most of this diaspora, neighbour and block voting? Hm? Its so obvious and it must be done NOW in order to bring fairness back into the competition or else the voting will go the exact same way every year and the competition would become so dull and boring that no - one would watch it as they will know which country will give which country the high points. I was able to predict who would get high votes from who in 2006 and you know what? I WAS RIGHT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
The only way to stop this diaspora voting is:
BRING BACK THE JURY VOTING! And let only the jurors vote, not 50 jurors/ 50 televote
100% JURORS!
Oh and if there is anyone from the EBU reading this then take note of this next point.
Make sure the results of the votes are NEVER AGAIN shown the way they were in 2006! The voting is supposed to be the most interesting part of the Eurovision and the EBU killed that in 2006 by only letting the speakers giving the results give the highest 3 results and the rest appearing on screen automatically! That destroyed last years competition I think everyone will agree because EVERYONES favourite parts of the Eurovision is when their country's song is performed and then the results.
Reduce political voting or else, no political voting!!!
Dear ALper,
Year after year, france gives 12 points to turkey
Before the semi, we gave our 12 points to Portugal
You know what, next year we will give 12 points to turkey too!!!
that's televoting.......and immigration vote!
you're right dragan!
The best example of diaspora voting are Austrian votes from 2005:
6 - Romania
7 - Turkey
8 - Croatia
10 - Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 - Serbia
Ow and another thing I wanted to add to my previous reaction.
It should be forbidden to be able to vote more than once for 1 single country.
The avarage viewers here vote only once, but the immigrants tend to vote up a whole phone card for their home country. Doesn't seem fair to me !
Björn
The above article has presented us with facts, there is not much more to discuss about the existance of political, neighbourly or diaspora voting: YES, they are definately and ostentatious present.
As for the question wether or not these votes ever desided an outcome...
Do you think Turkey would have won it in 2003 if they didn't get all the immagrant votes from Belgium, France and other Western-European countries with a vast Turkish immigration population. Remember they only had 2 points more than second place Belgium !
Björn
Well it must be political, as before maybe Greece and Cyprus gave each other 12 points because it was in a language familiar to tem, but now it's televoting, ex-USSR bloc singing in bad English and linguistically unrelated...
i am Turkish..be sure that diaspora points are not enough to win..we won in 2003 because we took so much points from different countries..slovenia for example..we were 4th in 2004 again we took a lot of points.
but in 2005 our song didnt deserve top 10..and we took 93 points..(germany netherlands france switzerland austria)
in 2006 same thing happened..(but also i think superstar deserved top 10)
as a result if your song isnt good enough nothing is important..
I don't think that neighbourly/political voting has decided a winner yet - a winning song will need to garner points from more than just it's neighbours. However it has affected mid table positions where points from neighbours/friends bumps up a score and hence a position. It also affects qualification from the semi-final - Does anyone honestly believe that for eg FYR Macedonia deserved to qualify in 2005 or Armenia this year?
I think that this kind of voting will kill the contest at least in Western Europe - there are now only a tiny handful of countries where you don't where their 12pts will go before the voting starts.
As for the excuse that they vote for each other because they are culturally 'close' - that's rubbish. Now that most countries entries are in English - unless a very ethnic song is entered, I would have thought that a pop song in English from Iceland is similar to a pop song from Greece
macedonia's place in the finals is guaranteed........... its obvious and so pathetic.
i thin all 44 countires that wants to enter now shoudl nete.r.. but then close the door for more countries..........
I think the best system will be like MF.All the countries,but all should decide the same day!I know it's not very nice,but that will be fair!Or if a song wins should not be allowed to change!See last year.....!!!Ukraine,Belarus and others chanced their songs,because they relized that the level is too high! The best way is to split europe in 4 groups and each week of april to have one semi-final, in helsinki.10 countries in each one 5 to final 2 to second chance.So we will have 4*5=20+4 songs from the 2nd chance =24+host=25.BUT in each semi-final the countries that will vote will be only these that are participating!Do u like this idea?
The UK and Ireland did "split up" though in 1921. I think it is a case of artists being regional stars and the Balkans seems to be the sort of place where fame is spread across the region so people already know the artists and vote for them rather than the song sometimes. The existence of Yugoslavia would have facilitated this for the ex-Yugoslav countries until the early 90s.
The performance of FYROM in the past three years is noticable though as they got through three times to the Final only to go back to the semi the next year. In my opinion this year is the only year they deserved to get through on the merit of the song.
It's because the countries share musical cultures and most of these artists say severina or dima bilan are well known in eastern europe because these artist peform there a lot or were famous before countries split up!
It is the same with Britain and Ireland (except the splitting up bit)!
Zingo do you propose that the funding and audiences of the big 4 be dissolved too?
Remember 1996 when Germany was knocked out of the pre-selection before final? One of the biggest markets and audiences in Europe removed from the show.
malta with a population of just 400,000 cannot be accused for sure, and yet we always do quite well except for this year, which is a year to forget lol
I agree completely.. regional voting has been apparent for years
What they need is to develop some formula of dividing europe into regional blocs
so there is equal representation and qualification from the semi finals
(ie. certain countries always qualify and certain others do not)
this way it would limit the number of countries from one region that make it to the final
thus votes cant be stacked for one region and would have to be divided with other nations
Nothing is fair!With juries or without!So....let's think that the esc can not be fairest!The last years have won great songs.The countries without nighbours can score high,with great songs,like isreal in 2005 or even belgium 2003 and malta 2002
Steven Spiteri - if Malta always comes 2nd or third then you shouldnt complain - that would make them one of the most successfull countries in Eurovision ever 
i think the big4 countires should be dissolved becuase in the past the big4 was good for the big4 countries but now its not its a disadvantage.
No topic these days reached the level of 100 reactions. What a nice eurovision spirit on this topic. Only as a member I want to say that I got impressed. Opinions, thoughts, vieuws .. etc.
Thanx to all the ones who brought there ideas, thinkin' mechanism to the topic. Hopefully this issue reaches a wider concensus between all the Ebu-member national TV sations together with the EBU and hope also that this won't stick only on esctoday.
I enjoyed every reaction here. Actually I noticed that we all forming eurovision togheter once again. To all who are makin' eurovision valuable .. for the sake of eurovision and the future of it.
and a great thanx to esctoday.com Sietse bakker can be proud of his crew who is doing a wonderfull job here! [b]@}--}-----------[/b]
most countries from the ex soviet block and ex jugoslavia vote for the nation and not the song. this is not just cyprus and greece.
Voting is a major cause why MALTA always end 2nd or 3rd
@Greg Dunn
"[i]Ben, thank you for a very intelligent and enlightening argument[/i]"
Thank you. What do you prefer, beer or a chocolate cake? Where should I send it to? 
"[i]When the problem is that A, B, C, D and E all traditionally focus their voting on F, the solution is simple: cut A, B and C out of the equation, at least to begin with, and make F's chances much more even with those of G, H and the rest.[/i]"
My words.
Ben:
[i]"Still, it wouldn't be "self-regulating" and it would not prevent countries without block support to get low scores year after year. (They would score better than now in the semis, maybe, but not in the finals.)"[/i]
The advantage would be that those countries that are thought to make it to the final simply by virtue of having enough neighbours giving them lots of points will have a hugely reduced chance of doing so on that basis; in general terms, they would be no better off than most others, therefore producing more of a chance overall of the 10 'best' songs from each semi-final making it through. And if this happens, it's more likely in turn that the 'best' songs will be better rewarded overall in the final, although we are always likely to see a couple of countries doing better than they 'deserve' to on the basis of... well, on any basis really. Let's imagine a situation where half of the six former Yugoslav countries end up in each semi-final and from both only one makes it through; clearly that would then be favoured heavily by the other countries in the final, perhaps giving it a better result than it might otherwise have got. Then again, if that was the only one to make it through under the new system, it would suggest it received enough support from other (non-'friendly' countries that perhaps it was going to do well anyway.
So yes, I agree: something has got to give. But at the moment I don't have any ideas other than those I've already offered.
The list of 120 reactions is divided into 5 pages. Choose a page:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
React yourself
This news article is older than one week. Reacting to articles is only possible in the first week after publication.
