British scientists claim to have found scientific evidence for the so-called 'friendly voting' at the Eurovision Song Contest. However, there are some serious foot-notes to make.
First questionable aspect of the outcome is the time frame the study focussed on. The scientists based the outcome on the results between 1992 and 2003. It seems the introduction of televoting during this period was not taken into account. It's questionable if these two periods can be compared, not to speak about drawing conclusions from the average results of both periods…
According to the study, the following countries are more 'friendly' towards eachother compared with other participating nations;
� Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, Croatia, Slovenia and Malta
� United Kingdom and Ireland
� The Scandinavian countries
� Belgium and the Netherlands
� Poland and Germany
� France and Portugal
� Cyprus and Greece
However, it's questionable to conclude 'friendly voting' after a repeating exchange of the '12 points', for example between Cyprus and Greece. Critics often seem to forget tight cultural, historical and linguistic relations between two or more nations, which doesn't neccesarily means there is a (political) friendship relation between countries. It's unknown if the scientists behind this study took these arguments into consideration.
Every year, a group of people critizes the 'friendly voting', 'neighbour voting' and 'block voting' before ánd after the contest. However, it must be said that final rankings look very different every year. 'Friendly' voting seems to make a difference when it comes to qualification for next year's final, but at the end, the top-5 songs get points from countries all over Europe.
As the format of the Eurovision Song Contest changed after 2003 into a two-nights event, which explains the absence of eastern-European countries, it might take several years before a new study on the results is scientifically valid. It's unknown if these results are relevant under the new circumstances.
Earlier, scientists found out that the best way to come first is to go last (read the article).
