Eurovision Rants

[Rant] Jury vs. Televote

(Yes, you might've seen this coming already...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is probably the infamous duel we've had to deal up to this point regarding voting in Eurovision. The most dramatic component in the contest, this basically decides the placements and obviously the winner.

And, of course, the main topic to discuss in the Eurovision community - with big parts of it being under the negative side.

There's nothing more despised in the Eurovision fandom nowadays than the juries, and this is not a new thing we see. And technically, it's not a recent thing either, but it all amplified after the voting method changed in 2016, allowing the 50% jury and 50% televote to have something to say regarding the results.

Now... the big question:
"Should the juries be fully eliminated from the voting system?"

For many, the answer is a big bold yes.

Why though?
Because they think the juries are underrating their favorites in a massive way that they end up really low in comparison with the televoting results. Or vice-versa - saving some songs they think are horrible and are overrated in the people's eyes.

Before 2016, the jury and televote were kind-of combined.
After 2016, it became 50/50.

The reasons, aside the "omg, they underrated my favorite!1!!!1!" also include issues like politics, strategical or even neighbour voting.
So basically, in many europals' eyes, juries are biased and biased only.

In my opinion, some juries are indeed biased, I can't deny that.
But if you literally eradicate the juries from the equation and let the 100% televoting up... It'll be basically the same thing.

People claim juries are biased as hell.
But I can assure you fully that the televote is just the same as the juries regarding the level of neighbouring votes, political votes, being incredibly biased and everything in between, if not even worse.

The televoting is influenced massively from different sides, from stans to neighbour love, politics or strategy, usually the most hyped or the most beloved ends up topping it in the easiest way possible.

So basically a whole lot of people consisting the televoting against like... I don't know, 10 people representing the juries?

"But the televote doesn't underrate the good songs, their winners are always the best choice!!!!!!"

...Are you sure hun? Look an example.
Slovenia 2011 is incredibly hyped by the fandom and it even gained a lot of #1 places in the 2011 tops - but in reality, the televote couldn't even care about them, the juries saved that song.

Plus, Israel and Portugal both won the televoting in 2017, respectively 2018, and a whole majority claims that jury saved their ass and underrated their favs. Give me a break.

If it wasn't for the combined voting in 2016, Russia would've won.
And in all honesty, that big attempt at trying desperately to snatch a win with all the props, effects, choreography and everything else just proved that "when it's too much, IT'S TOO MUCH" and that Russia's plan backfired.
(Plus the song is a generic love song we've heard yet again everywhere, what's new?)

Same with Italy in 2015.
I personally despised Grande Amore. But I did like a few elements in the whole thing, like the background visuals, their harmonies and especially Piero's voice.
But hell, some people think it was the greatest song ever in the entire contest and it was their end of the world when they came 3rd. And then comment online their butthurt because "omg, jury robbed Italy, as usual".
(Small throwback at when I ranted about the issue with Italy and the fandom, it's getting honestly annoying)

Like okay, if your favorite failed in the semi-final or did really poorly in the final under the hands of jury/televote or in combined, then fine, I understand why you're incredibly upset.

But when your favorite comes top 3 and you complain online about how juries apparently "robbed" that song because your only statement you can give in that defense is that "it was the best"...

...Then be free to leave the fucking room immediately.

And we'll kindly return to our initial question:
"Should the juries be fully eliminated from the voting system?"

My answer: NO.

Listen up, I'm not fond of any of the parts, I don't favor the jury, nor the televote, and I clearly don't care of any butthurt person which tries to shove me the fact that televote is way better and juries suck.

But considering both of them are biased as hell, I would rather see the 50/50 voting in this case.
Juries have a different perception, televote has other. It can simply amplify or cancel some acts in a matter of time (no pun intended) and I feel it's way more fair to determine a winner this way.

But clearly not a 100% televote. That would be the biggest "hell no" in my book. Nor 100% jury, to be fair.
It'll be just a big big catastrophe either way. I prefer the actual voting method, personally.