In the last two weeks, our editorial leading articles have given rise to some fantastic ideas and debates amongst the readers and reactors on esctoday.com the editorial team have been following with interest. This week, we're asking you what you think about the idea that countries should use a jury rather than a televote if they are not participating in either the semi-final or the final of the Eurovision Song Contest.
One of the interesting revelations of the recent editorial articles has been many people discussing a return to jury voting. Often offeredas a means to prevent political/diaspora voting from determining the winning song and the songs that qualify from the semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest, how could this idea be implemented?
Do you think that countries should be allowed to vote if they are not represented in either the semi-final or the final of the Eurovision Song Contest. Under this idea, the 14 countries pre-qualified for the Final would not hold a televote, but instead use a jury system to decide how the votes of the nation will be awarded for the semi-final. The countries that fail to qualify would then use a jury rather than a televote to award their points in the final.
REASONS FOR THE CHANGE
The argument that was presented as part of this idea is that it would reduce the effect of neighbourly voting on the top five positions in the final and qualification from the semi-final. This year, 2nd placed Russia and 3rd placed Bosnia Herzegovina swept up the top marks from almost all of their neighbours. Croatia, and FYR Macedonia are almost guaranteed a top ten finish in the semifinal, and therefore a permanent place in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest in 2007, with Serbia likely to be added to the list.
Whilst jury voting is still not a safe-guard against political or neighbourly voting, (the usual Greece-Cyprus example should be enough), it does not guarantee all neighbours will receive hefty points from one another. Remember under a jury system, three of the five Scandinavian countries finished in last place in the 1980s.
The likelihood is that diaspora voting would be cut out under this system, because when a country is not participating, the viewing figures are much lower, however the diaspora of a participating country are likely to tune in in great numbers, and therefore have a larger influence over how a country awards its votes using a televoting system. All countries will participate in at least one show, and therefore all viewers will get the chance to vote on the competition.
REASONS AGAINST THE CHANGE
The most obvious answer here is that with the technical ability to allow viewers to determine the result of the show, it should be used. Juries were an effect way for countries to deliver their country's result each year, but often the public would have voted differently. Televoting allows democracy and therefore should be used wherever possible.
Televoting is also a good source of revenue for the Eurovisoin Song Contest and allows the costs of entry to be reduced, thus allowing more countries to participate. By reducing the revenue, the increased cost of participation may force smaller or poorer countries out of the event.
HAVE YOUR SAY
What do you, the readers and reactors of esctoday.com think?
Should jury voting be introduced in this way?
Should the juries be brought back in any other way?
Have your say in the reactions section below.
