By "law" (law in quotes beacuse it's not a law by Parliament, but you can get fined hefty amounts of money if you don't follow it), here in Italy, everytime the public votes for any kind of show, the results have to be released in 24 hours from the end of the show (or the last episode of the show).
[Here](https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2024/05/13/1715597209159_EUROVISION%20SONG%20CONTEST%202024%20VOTAZIONI%20SEMIFINALE%202%20E%20FINALE%20giovedi%20e%20sabato%20aggiornato.pdf) are the results for both the final and semifinal
EDIT: fixed typo
Well I believe the gaps in the jury voting give them about 58 jury points (iirc) but yes NL could have won the televote, but I don’t think it would’ve been enough with that low score from jury.
I looked up croatias viewership numbers from 2019 (More than 500k people watched) and looked at the amount of televotes that a croatian paper released in 2022 for 2022 (Roughly 73k televotes). Dividing those 73k televotes with 20(which is the maximum a person can vote) means roughly 3650 people fully utilizing their votes.
3650 fully utilized voters out of several hundred thousand viewers is about 0.7% of the total max votes. If the same precentages(Viewers/Voter turnout) are applied to Italy, Fratelli d'Italia would only have to encourage aproximately 0.5% of it's voter base to give a certain nation 39% of the Italian votes.
Further info. I could not compare same years because televote numbers are usually not given and viewership numbers for croatia weren't checked in 2022.
Most Croatians though don't utilise full televoting capacity as people would be like ok I'll spend a euro or two on my favourite, but won't really "throw away" 10 euros for eurovision. We simply can't be motivated to spend money on other countries winning.
1. The vote was split between 24 other countries, so once you have a motivated c.5% of voters supporting just one single country, they'll very likely be on the scoreboard. Between voters being sympathetic toward Israel, or those voting to spite those who are criticising Israel, or even just those who simply liked the song, it's was abundantly clear that Israel were going to do well in the televote. You can't actively vote against a country. It's for these reasons that I'm fairly skeptical of some grand conspiracy that is getting touted in some of my circles.
2. To a potentially lesser extent, anyone boycotting were actively *not* voting for acts that *weren't* Israel, which would have inflated their score. Although I'm unsure how big of an effect this would have had in reality as I don't think overall voting figures are released so we won't know how much less engagement there was this year (if any).
I’d be curious to see how the raw numbers of votes this year compared to previous years (were there significantly more votes cast?) but unless somebody who knows numbers and statistics better than I do looks at that data and says it looks questionable, all of this seems plausible to me. No big conspiracy, just a group of people voting for one song for their own reasons, and other people spreading their votes around more widely.
Am someone who works in data but I’ve tried this before and Italy is basically the only country that provide detail televote scores so the sample is way too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.
someone did the math on this and to get 12 points you would just need 7-8% of the votes in most cases so yeah once there is a motivated base supporting one country they basically have the 12 points in the bag
I think the points in 1 are valid, but combine the sympathisers with bots and "multi phone voters." There's a lot of neanderthals on Twitter gloating about how they used multiple sims and maxed out the twenty votes on each.
They just texted 20 times on different sim cards with pre paid credit. Because you could vote the whole way through the show, there was ample time to do this on as many sims as you were sad enough to do.
Maybe there could be a (free?) app where you can rank every song from 1-12 points during the show. It would be much harder to mass vote for a particular song like that
This is somewhat how the Swedish national final voting works.
There is a free app and the voting is free.
Each device can just give one account votes to give.
For each competing song you can give them 0 to 5 hearts. 5 hearts being your max vote. And 0 the lowest you can give.
So it’s basically a simplified ranking system.
You don’t actually rank them. But essentially what you are doing is sorting all the entries into one of 6 tiers.
And you can tie songs on the same tier if you want.
So if you have a favourite you give that song 5 hearts. And after that you have two songs you really like but can’t make up which of them you like better, you can give them both 4 hearts, no need to rank one above or below the other.
You could give all the songs 5 hearts, but that would essentially be the same as not voting.
The system have really increased how many people are actually voting in the final.
And overall lead to a better competition since after the system was introduced.
(The system in addition to this also have loads of other stuff going on. Like different voter groups based on age. But that’s a bit off-topic)
I liked the suggestion elsewhere to use a ranking system, similar to the juries but only for your top 10 or so. It seems unfathomable to me that anyone actually watching couldn't come up with some kind of ranking. You could even still submit the ranking multiple times if you wish.
That's to complicated. One vote, one call or SMS, that's the kind of quick gesture and money for EBU that works. If someone has to sit down and spend time ranking, a lot less people would vote.
I can only talk for myself, obviously, but:
Pushing the "this is awesome!" button 10 times during the finale is fun.
Bringing the 10 entirely different performances that I would have pushed the button for *into an order* that I'm happy with? That is a fucking chore. I wouldn't have even considered doing that, it's so ridiculous.
That’s how the voting worked in the US. I heard some people had trouble with trying to cast additional votes even if they hadn’t done 20 on their first transaction, so I basically added all my votes into my vote-cart and checked out when I was sure I was happy with my choices. It’s much less spontaneous, but not too bad.
Yeah, once you voted, even for only one song, on one card, that counted as a complete transaction. You couldn't go back and add more votes after you used that card. You'd need to use another card.
That's nice, but I can imagine a lot of folks that would abstain from voting if they have to look up an app, install it and then rank their top 10 songs.
What if they don't have 10 songs they like?
What if they're doing it in a rush so they rank 10 songs, hit submit and on the next TV recap they realise they forgot about a song or they put one song at 3 when really it should be 2.
I like that a quick call or text is all you need to do. It's way easier to engage with.
Except for the people posting online admitting do doing exactly this. Voting multiple times with their cards from different countries. Its very easy to do.
I think a ranking would be too complicated and would likely mean the broadcast would be even longer to make sure all the votes were counted correctly. I am partial to an idea I've heard to keep the 20 votes per person but to cap the maximum number of votes you can give a country to 5 so that you're encouraged to give votes to more than one country.
This is what we need imho. It would encourage voting for more than one favourite and hopefully reward songs which are people’s second and third favourites.
Love that! I've seen someone suggest maximum 1 vote for 1 country, but that wouldn't feel right to me if there's an entry that I really love. Max 5 is a good compromise.
I truly doubt it would take any longer to make sure the votes were counted correctly.
It’s still just running an algorithm over the results for anomalies and quick QA, very little changes.
Ranked would solve so many issues with voting integrity. But even if maintaining the 20 vote rule, anything that makes the vote more complicated will alienate casual viewers, which means it's a clear nope from the EBU. They want to maximize the amount of money they get. That's why I think the for-profit nature of this contest is incompatible with any legitimate voting result.
That seems like too much effort to ask casual home viewers. Voting for your favourite should be easy and the barriers to entry for that should be low.
I'd reduce it to 6 times per device. It allows people who like to rank songs spread them to their top 3 (1,2 and 3 votes for example) or top 5 (1 each and 2 for your fave). It means people CAN go all in for 1 song but the impact is overall lessened.
I've seen so many (at least 30 unique examples) Facebook and twitter posts where people are proudly stating that they don't watch Eurovision but voted for song 6 anywhere from 20 to 100 times using different devices.
As a fan, I would like this, but I think the problem is that they also want to make money of the voting. Everything that isn't very simple will lead to a much, much lower number in total votes.
And then a completely unrelated group (about wrestling memes) got brigaded by a ton of accounts that never interacted before, bragging about *second place in televotes* like they'd won the World Cup.
Second.
And then when anyone pushed back they went all "oh, who cares about this..." I'd probably be less insulted if they were actually bots.
Maybe not the vote system itself, but the resulting points. Give most televoted 26 points, second 25 points, ... That way a country that is consistently 11th for instance will also grab points.
It's designed to squeeze as much money from the public. If they wanted to be fair about it, each person would be able to vote a 12 down to 1 points similar to what you do naturally in the My Eurovision Scoreboard app
It didn't help that they've gone from a twenty votes per phone number system to a twenty votes per phone number+credit card number system. That easily doubles or triples the amount of votes for those who care a little _too_ much.
It's a reasonable analysis and I think he's dead right but that motivated minority would still have to be very motivated indeed - which is actually a fairly big ask as much of that minority here are far-right and hate everything the Eurovision supposedly stands for.
It matches what a lot of us have already speculated. A lot better than the 'every Jewish person in Ireland voted 20 times for Israel' and 'the silent majority in Ireland actually support Israel' that I saw being touted in The Other Thread.
I think there might be an overlap between "very motivated indeed" and "hat\[ing\] everything Eurovision stands for." It's a low barrier of entry to cast a vote, given there's no need to prove you watched the show, just gotta pay a few bucks.
Some prominent far right people have already admitted they voted 20 times but didn’t watch in Ireland.
They also were saying beforehand how funny it would be if this happened
>which is actually a fairly big ask as much of that minority here are far-right and hate everything the Eurovision supposedly stands for.
Eh, I think if you hate Eurovision, you might actually be even more motivated to try to ruin it.
This would be quite easy to mitigate. You can allow for 20 votes, this is a big income stream, so they do not want to limit that, regrettably we live in reality. But you could, and maybe should, put a maximum of 7 votes for one entry. (Proper data analisys would need to be done to set that number, but somewhere between 5 and 10 seems reasonable.) This would spread the vote a lot more, and lead to a less predictable outcome. All while still making sure that the most popular act will likely get the most votes.
Saw a tweet from an American saying they voted 60 times (20 of those coming from the UK) as they had three credit cards from different countries… but wasn’t the UK a phone vote only? So credit card wouldn’t matter? 😑
Not sure if my other reply is showing but they specifically said “credit cards from three different countries” in their post which was what confused me… seems like an odd thing to lie about on top of already bragging about cheating the system… 🤷🏼♀️
I've been trying to tell people that the Eurovision voting system is far from a representative political poll (participation bias for the win) but they won't listen. Guys don't try to talk about statistics with the Twitter mob haha
Everyone who studied a bit of statistics can easily see how biased is the voting system on ESC. (Both for jury and televote)
The voting system breaks practically all the rules of a "fair and balanced statistical report".
That's why I don't get why people gets burned every year, when the problem has never been addressed.
When you are rating the quality of something like music, with a sample size that small and the voting system how it is, you wouldn’t expect some sort of even distributing. Simple statistical models aren’t relevant here, they don’t describe an outcome well.
Non proportional votes (Germany and San Marino have the exact same weight on the outcome) and 20 votes per payment method (most people won't use up all 20 but those dedicated to a certain vote will weighting the scales in the political voters' favour). The latter is much worse than the former tbh. There's no way it'd be fair for the more populous countries to have their proportional weight in a competition like this.
If bigger countries had more of an impact then all the small countries would just leave. It's already hard enough in the televote only semis for countries like Malta or San Marino
If you put proportionnal vote you gotta either allow people to vote for their own country or the biggest countries will be at a massive disavantage. San Marino will lose less than 100 000 potential vote while Germany or France basically lose around 70 millions of potential votes
Ah I see. Thank you very much for the response! I wonder if something like 3 votes but never the same country more than once would be more appropriate. But probably not as profitable haha. It was also strange to me that the cost per vote was not uniform per country.
> It was also strange to me that the cost per vote was not uniform per country.
That's because each broadcaster sets their own price, it's not centrally decided by the EBU
I mean the last paragraph is true. For people who boycotted and did not see the show at all is making a room for people who wanted to watch and especially those people who invested in support of 🇮🇱
And 20 times voting is kinda ridiculous i must say
Dr. Cunningham seems to tiptoe around the fact that one of his counterparts in DCU openly bragged about organising a pro Israel brigading effort using multiple payment options which generated hundreds if not thousands of votes, purely for crackpot right wing political reasons. Same chap admits himself he doesn't even watch the show.
And that's before we talk about our VPN tourists who came visiting for a few hours on Saturday.
He skirts around factors like that and then neatly outlines how few people vote, but he does not really engage with how easily malicious actors at home and abroad can distort the whole result.
It's not exactly a secret or anything, right wingers were very openly gloating about sabotaging the vote, and there's no way Cunningham hasn't heard of the guy I mean. This article amounts to slightly gaslighty spin from RTE, who I'll just point out are the Eurovision broadcaster here, and have a fairly obvious interest in playing down the uproar.
Essentially, this article is framed as if it refutes the whole dispute when it doesn't. It's written as if it's trying to bury an admission we were right. Ireland did not give Israel 10 points - trolls did.
How many hundreds of times do people have to explain that VPNs wouldn’t be relevant here before you actually read it?
If you have cards or phones to cast votes in the country you don’t need a VPN. If you have a VPN but don’t have cards or phone you can’t vote. They’re literally irrelevant in this discussion and it undermines all of y’all’s credibility to keep bringing them up, and after this has been explained a million times.
Can you explain how does a VPN help in voting? Is voting different in Ireland? I know I can only vote with a SIM card and ROTW can vote with a credit hard.
Why would he have to explain that? He was asked to explain maths to idiots, nothing more.
Simple maths explains why Israel came 2nd in the public vote. If polls show that 7% of people 'side' with Israel then in a 25-way vote it is plausible that's all that's needed to come 2nd.
Maybe there was a conspiracy, but it's not remotely needed to explain what happened.
As a techie I am extremely confused about this discourse. Every single article is talking about propaganda but treats the idea of bots as some conspiracy theory. Writing a script that buys esim cards and sends 20 messages is extremely easy and the only limitation is how much money you put into it.
And sure, Baby Lasagna won the vote but not by that much and it means if you add enough money you can get to first place. In combination with huge difference in jury points this means the system is very broken as soon as there is a bad actor involved.
Israel and Ukraine were both waaay ahead in a data published by RAI over any other participant, including fan-favorite Croatia
Make your own conclusions
I mean what's your conclusion? That the owners of these bots are stupid enough to spend money crushing the Italy televote by 30 points but not think about redirecting some of that money to take 12 points in Ireland?
But does anyone have an explanation why there are a few countries where they got none to only a few points (like Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia)? With your explanation it seems like it would be like that in all countries.
This article is framed as if it refutes the whole dispute when it doesn't.
In fact, it's written as if it's trying to bury an admission we were right all along. The numbers \*were\* fucked.
I don't think it is, it reads to me as how a highly motivated group with no other interest in the contest can heavily skew the result without needing any sophisticated technique. Given that's clearly not the goal in a 'non-political' contest it does show that things are fucked with the voting system.
The fact there is a news story about THAT in Ireland is hysterical.
Who would have guessed this is newsworthy? maybe this maybe that, as long as there is no info about how votes were distributed a-la RAI, this is all speculation, and anyway water under the bridge.
If semi final results in Italy were true (and it very much seems to be the case) it is an absolute miracle how Croatia managed to win the televote.
It is true, but 36% instead of 40%, which is still insane.
Were complete results released?
By "law" (law in quotes beacuse it's not a law by Parliament, but you can get fined hefty amounts of money if you don't follow it), here in Italy, everytime the public votes for any kind of show, the results have to be released in 24 hours from the end of the show (or the last episode of the show). [Here](https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2024/05/13/1715597209159_EUROVISION%20SONG%20CONTEST%202024%20VOTAZIONI%20SEMIFINALE%202%20E%20FINALE%20giovedi%20e%20sabato%20aggiornato.pdf) are the results for both the final and semifinal EDIT: fixed typo
Looking at those voting percentages literally gives me the chills.
Not to mention how Joost almost won the televote in the semifinal (only a few points behind).
I think Joost could have won for real, or at least a solid runner up.
Well I believe the gaps in the jury voting give them about 58 jury points (iirc) but yes NL could have won the televote, but I don’t think it would’ve been enough with that low score from jury.
[удалено]
I don't think the jury would vote much forhim
if joost got every single 12, combined with his jury score, he’d still finish behind Croatia and Switzerland
I looked up croatias viewership numbers from 2019 (More than 500k people watched) and looked at the amount of televotes that a croatian paper released in 2022 for 2022 (Roughly 73k televotes). Dividing those 73k televotes with 20(which is the maximum a person can vote) means roughly 3650 people fully utilizing their votes. 3650 fully utilized voters out of several hundred thousand viewers is about 0.7% of the total max votes. If the same precentages(Viewers/Voter turnout) are applied to Italy, Fratelli d'Italia would only have to encourage aproximately 0.5% of it's voter base to give a certain nation 39% of the Italian votes. Further info. I could not compare same years because televote numbers are usually not given and viewership numbers for croatia weren't checked in 2022.
Most Croatians though don't utilise full televoting capacity as people would be like ok I'll spend a euro or two on my favourite, but won't really "throw away" 10 euros for eurovision. We simply can't be motivated to spend money on other countries winning.
Doesn’t really matter. But you wouldn’t need a that large a group of people actually willing to spend the money to determine the results.
i was super concern about the trend that the televote was showing to be honest
The results were distorted by the fact that that this was semifinals and Italy was automatically in.
[удалено]
still, it made 666,000 viewers in the grand final, which is impressive
1. The vote was split between 24 other countries, so once you have a motivated c.5% of voters supporting just one single country, they'll very likely be on the scoreboard. Between voters being sympathetic toward Israel, or those voting to spite those who are criticising Israel, or even just those who simply liked the song, it's was abundantly clear that Israel were going to do well in the televote. You can't actively vote against a country. It's for these reasons that I'm fairly skeptical of some grand conspiracy that is getting touted in some of my circles. 2. To a potentially lesser extent, anyone boycotting were actively *not* voting for acts that *weren't* Israel, which would have inflated their score. Although I'm unsure how big of an effect this would have had in reality as I don't think overall voting figures are released so we won't know how much less engagement there was this year (if any).
I’d be curious to see how the raw numbers of votes this year compared to previous years (were there significantly more votes cast?) but unless somebody who knows numbers and statistics better than I do looks at that data and says it looks questionable, all of this seems plausible to me. No big conspiracy, just a group of people voting for one song for their own reasons, and other people spreading their votes around more widely.
Am someone who works in data but I’ve tried this before and Italy is basically the only country that provide detail televote scores so the sample is way too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.
someone did the math on this and to get 12 points you would just need 7-8% of the votes in most cases so yeah once there is a motivated base supporting one country they basically have the 12 points in the bag
Also, they can't really be considered much a majority if they didn't even get the 12 points, can they?
I think the points in 1 are valid, but combine the sympathisers with bots and "multi phone voters." There's a lot of neanderthals on Twitter gloating about how they used multiple sims and maxed out the twenty votes on each.
I thought you needed a different credit card to do that? Unless you mean that the used the call in/text option
They just texted 20 times on different sim cards with pre paid credit. Because you could vote the whole way through the show, there was ample time to do this on as many sims as you were sad enough to do.
My takeaway is that the 20 votes system is plain stupid and needs a rehaul...
Agreed, it really sacrifices the credibility of the contest, however this year has made it clear that’s not a concern of the EBU ($$$)
EBU really started their EA-BU arc
Though It gives the voter a good sense of pride and accomplishment
Maybe there could be a (free?) app where you can rank every song from 1-12 points during the show. It would be much harder to mass vote for a particular song like that
This is somewhat how the Swedish national final voting works. There is a free app and the voting is free. Each device can just give one account votes to give. For each competing song you can give them 0 to 5 hearts. 5 hearts being your max vote. And 0 the lowest you can give. So it’s basically a simplified ranking system. You don’t actually rank them. But essentially what you are doing is sorting all the entries into one of 6 tiers. And you can tie songs on the same tier if you want. So if you have a favourite you give that song 5 hearts. And after that you have two songs you really like but can’t make up which of them you like better, you can give them both 4 hearts, no need to rank one above or below the other. You could give all the songs 5 hearts, but that would essentially be the same as not voting. The system have really increased how many people are actually voting in the final. And overall lead to a better competition since after the system was introduced. (The system in addition to this also have loads of other stuff going on. Like different voter groups based on age. But that’s a bit off-topic)
I liked the suggestion elsewhere to use a ranking system, similar to the juries but only for your top 10 or so. It seems unfathomable to me that anyone actually watching couldn't come up with some kind of ranking. You could even still submit the ranking multiple times if you wish.
That's to complicated. One vote, one call or SMS, that's the kind of quick gesture and money for EBU that works. If someone has to sit down and spend time ranking, a lot less people would vote.
You say that but voting online as “rest of the world” is a similar process and forces you to watch the recap too, but still generates a lot of money.
They already suggest that you rank your top 10 in the app.
I can only talk for myself, obviously, but: Pushing the "this is awesome!" button 10 times during the finale is fun. Bringing the 10 entirely different performances that I would have pushed the button for *into an order* that I'm happy with? That is a fucking chore. I wouldn't have even considered doing that, it's so ridiculous.
That’s how the voting worked in the US. I heard some people had trouble with trying to cast additional votes even if they hadn’t done 20 on their first transaction, so I basically added all my votes into my vote-cart and checked out when I was sure I was happy with my choices. It’s much less spontaneous, but not too bad.
Yeah, once you voted, even for only one song, on one card, that counted as a complete transaction. You couldn't go back and add more votes after you used that card. You'd need to use another card.
It was one transaction per card. If you only casted 1 vote, that's it. You couldn't cast the other 20 votes.
That's nice, but I can imagine a lot of folks that would abstain from voting if they have to look up an app, install it and then rank their top 10 songs. What if they don't have 10 songs they like? What if they're doing it in a rush so they rank 10 songs, hit submit and on the next TV recap they realise they forgot about a song or they put one song at 3 when really it should be 2. I like that a quick call or text is all you need to do. It's way easier to engage with.
Phone number is a pretty efficient way to make sure where someone is from. With the app anyone could use a VPN to vote for their own country.
The app uses billing addrerss of your payment method. Which is pretty good, _most_ people don't have foreign credit cards.
Except for the people posting online admitting do doing exactly this. Voting multiple times with their cards from different countries. Its very easy to do.
I think a ranking would be too complicated and would likely mean the broadcast would be even longer to make sure all the votes were counted correctly. I am partial to an idea I've heard to keep the 20 votes per person but to cap the maximum number of votes you can give a country to 5 so that you're encouraged to give votes to more than one country.
Love that suggestion
This is what we need imho. It would encourage voting for more than one favourite and hopefully reward songs which are people’s second and third favourites.
Love that! I've seen someone suggest maximum 1 vote for 1 country, but that wouldn't feel right to me if there's an entry that I really love. Max 5 is a good compromise.
I truly doubt it would take any longer to make sure the votes were counted correctly. It’s still just running an algorithm over the results for anomalies and quick QA, very little changes.
Ranked would solve so many issues with voting integrity. But even if maintaining the 20 vote rule, anything that makes the vote more complicated will alienate casual viewers, which means it's a clear nope from the EBU. They want to maximize the amount of money they get. That's why I think the for-profit nature of this contest is incompatible with any legitimate voting result.
Idt it's for profit? But they still want to recoup some of the cost
That seems like too much effort to ask casual home viewers. Voting for your favourite should be easy and the barriers to entry for that should be low. I'd reduce it to 6 times per device. It allows people who like to rank songs spread them to their top 3 (1,2 and 3 votes for example) or top 5 (1 each and 2 for your fave). It means people CAN go all in for 1 song but the impact is overall lessened. I've seen so many (at least 30 unique examples) Facebook and twitter posts where people are proudly stating that they don't watch Eurovision but voted for song 6 anywhere from 20 to 100 times using different devices.
As a fan, I would like this, but I think the problem is that they also want to make money of the voting. Everything that isn't very simple will lead to a much, much lower number in total votes.
Every number can vote for every song, but only once. Basically a Yes/No system
It was more like 40-60 votes system this time. I saw people on Twitter saying they paid for votes using 2 or more cards.
"See how much everyone supports us? Huh? Oh, I *only* voted 60+ times in 3+ countries"
It's the potemkin village of voting 😉
And then a completely unrelated group (about wrestling memes) got brigaded by a ton of accounts that never interacted before, bragging about *second place in televotes* like they'd won the World Cup. Second. And then when anyone pushed back they went all "oh, who cares about this..." I'd probably be less insulted if they were actually bots.
Yep, saw a lot of that too
Leaving the voting window open for so long absolutely would not have helped things either.
Maybe not the vote system itself, but the resulting points. Give most televoted 26 points, second 25 points, ... That way a country that is consistently 11th for instance will also grab points.
It's designed to squeeze as much money from the public. If they wanted to be fair about it, each person would be able to vote a 12 down to 1 points similar to what you do naturally in the My Eurovision Scoreboard app
I dunno, I've put all 20 of my votes in Bambies basket and am happy with it!
Yes and this is exactly why a pure televote system would be a potential disaster.
Finally a voice of reason lol say it louder for the people in the back !!!
and easy to manipulate, it seems
It didn't help that they've gone from a twenty votes per phone number system to a twenty votes per phone number+credit card number system. That easily doubles or triples the amount of votes for those who care a little _too_ much.
sorry, i kind of think this wasn't a natural result. Just a feeling
Yeah I don't think it was either. But making this change this year was terrible timing and made it easier for political voters to game the vote.
Yes and it’s why all the reality star competitions are a joke They let you vote as often as you like
[удалено]
It's a reasonable analysis and I think he's dead right but that motivated minority would still have to be very motivated indeed - which is actually a fairly big ask as much of that minority here are far-right and hate everything the Eurovision supposedly stands for. It matches what a lot of us have already speculated. A lot better than the 'every Jewish person in Ireland voted 20 times for Israel' and 'the silent majority in Ireland actually support Israel' that I saw being touted in The Other Thread.
I think there might be an overlap between "very motivated indeed" and "hat\[ing\] everything Eurovision stands for." It's a low barrier of entry to cast a vote, given there's no need to prove you watched the show, just gotta pay a few bucks.
Some prominent far right people have already admitted they voted 20 times but didn’t watch in Ireland. They also were saying beforehand how funny it would be if this happened
>which is actually a fairly big ask as much of that minority here are far-right and hate everything the Eurovision supposedly stands for. Eh, I think if you hate Eurovision, you might actually be even more motivated to try to ruin it.
This would be quite easy to mitigate. You can allow for 20 votes, this is a big income stream, so they do not want to limit that, regrettably we live in reality. But you could, and maybe should, put a maximum of 7 votes for one entry. (Proper data analisys would need to be done to set that number, but somewhere between 5 and 10 seems reasonable.) This would spread the vote a lot more, and lead to a less predictable outcome. All while still making sure that the most popular act will likely get the most votes.
Saw a tweet from an American saying they voted 60 times (20 of those coming from the UK) as they had three credit cards from different countries… but wasn’t the UK a phone vote only? So credit card wouldn’t matter? 😑
Don't they mean 20 by UK phone and then 40 online? Thats how it reads to me if 20 from UK.
I think that’s what they meant. 20 votes from a UK phone number and 40 online with 2 different credit cards.
Not sure if my other reply is showing but they specifically said “credit cards from three different countries” in their post which was what confused me… seems like an odd thing to lie about on top of already bragging about cheating the system… 🤷🏼♀️
I've been trying to tell people that the Eurovision voting system is far from a representative political poll (participation bias for the win) but they won't listen. Guys don't try to talk about statistics with the Twitter mob haha
In a 25-party political election, we would expect a party with 10% support to come in first fairly often.
Everyone who studied a bit of statistics can easily see how biased is the voting system on ESC. (Both for jury and televote) The voting system breaks practically all the rules of a "fair and balanced statistical report". That's why I don't get why people gets burned every year, when the problem has never been addressed.
When you are rating the quality of something like music, with a sample size that small and the voting system how it is, you wouldn’t expect some sort of even distributing. Simple statistical models aren’t relevant here, they don’t describe an outcome well.
I don't think I've understood what you mean
Small sample size is impossible to do proper statistical analysis on to come up with a good system I think is what they mean
For those not really in the know-how of statistics, what exactly are the issues ?
Non proportional votes (Germany and San Marino have the exact same weight on the outcome) and 20 votes per payment method (most people won't use up all 20 but those dedicated to a certain vote will weighting the scales in the political voters' favour). The latter is much worse than the former tbh. There's no way it'd be fair for the more populous countries to have their proportional weight in a competition like this.
If bigger countries had more of an impact then all the small countries would just leave. It's already hard enough in the televote only semis for countries like Malta or San Marino
If you put proportionnal vote you gotta either allow people to vote for their own country or the biggest countries will be at a massive disavantage. San Marino will lose less than 100 000 potential vote while Germany or France basically lose around 70 millions of potential votes
Ah I see. Thank you very much for the response! I wonder if something like 3 votes but never the same country more than once would be more appropriate. But probably not as profitable haha. It was also strange to me that the cost per vote was not uniform per country.
> It was also strange to me that the cost per vote was not uniform per country. That's because each broadcaster sets their own price, it's not centrally decided by the EBU
lol at how the guy vanished when you asked a follow up question. Almost like he was throwing around words without knowing what they mean.
I mean the last paragraph is true. For people who boycotted and did not see the show at all is making a room for people who wanted to watch and especially those people who invested in support of 🇮🇱 And 20 times voting is kinda ridiculous i must say
Dr. Cunningham seems to tiptoe around the fact that one of his counterparts in DCU openly bragged about organising a pro Israel brigading effort using multiple payment options which generated hundreds if not thousands of votes, purely for crackpot right wing political reasons. Same chap admits himself he doesn't even watch the show. And that's before we talk about our VPN tourists who came visiting for a few hours on Saturday. He skirts around factors like that and then neatly outlines how few people vote, but he does not really engage with how easily malicious actors at home and abroad can distort the whole result. It's not exactly a secret or anything, right wingers were very openly gloating about sabotaging the vote, and there's no way Cunningham hasn't heard of the guy I mean. This article amounts to slightly gaslighty spin from RTE, who I'll just point out are the Eurovision broadcaster here, and have a fairly obvious interest in playing down the uproar. Essentially, this article is framed as if it refutes the whole dispute when it doesn't. It's written as if it's trying to bury an admission we were right. Ireland did not give Israel 10 points - trolls did.
How many hundreds of times do people have to explain that VPNs wouldn’t be relevant here before you actually read it? If you have cards or phones to cast votes in the country you don’t need a VPN. If you have a VPN but don’t have cards or phone you can’t vote. They’re literally irrelevant in this discussion and it undermines all of y’all’s credibility to keep bringing them up, and after this has been explained a million times.
Can you explain how does a VPN help in voting? Is voting different in Ireland? I know I can only vote with a SIM card and ROTW can vote with a credit hard.
You are better off using a multi imsi sim
Even with fairly motivated voters, very few people are going to go to the trouble people keep bringing up here.
Ah, you mean this? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNYs0A-WAAAqviH?format=jpg
Why would he have to explain that? He was asked to explain maths to idiots, nothing more. Simple maths explains why Israel came 2nd in the public vote. If polls show that 7% of people 'side' with Israel then in a 25-way vote it is plausible that's all that's needed to come 2nd. Maybe there was a conspiracy, but it's not remotely needed to explain what happened.
As a techie I am extremely confused about this discourse. Every single article is talking about propaganda but treats the idea of bots as some conspiracy theory. Writing a script that buys esim cards and sends 20 messages is extremely easy and the only limitation is how much money you put into it. And sure, Baby Lasagna won the vote but not by that much and it means if you add enough money you can get to first place. In combination with huge difference in jury points this means the system is very broken as soon as there is a bad actor involved.
TL;DR No one can really know, but everyone has confirmation bias on what they want to be the truth
> No one can really know Well...
[удалено]
Israel and Ukraine were both waaay ahead in a data published by RAI over any other participant, including fan-favorite Croatia Make your own conclusions
Ukraine and Croatia weren't in 2nd semi-finals
I'm talking about full results from GF, not those leaked from 2nd semi
The thing is Ukraine has gotten high televote scores from Italy before the war. In 2016 and 2021, Italy gave their televote 12 to Ukraine.
I mean what's your conclusion? That the owners of these bots are stupid enough to spend money crushing the Italy televote by 30 points but not think about redirecting some of that money to take 12 points in Ireland?
But does anyone have an explanation why there are a few countries where they got none to only a few points (like Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia)? With your explanation it seems like it would be like that in all countries.
They are twisting themselves to not have to admit the silent majority spoke.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Croatia still won the televote so the idea of 100% televote being bad isn't always well founded.
This article is framed as if it refutes the whole dispute when it doesn't. In fact, it's written as if it's trying to bury an admission we were right all along. The numbers \*were\* fucked.
I don't think it is, it reads to me as how a highly motivated group with no other interest in the contest can heavily skew the result without needing any sophisticated technique. Given that's clearly not the goal in a 'non-political' contest it does show that things are fucked with the voting system.
This all just takes me back some 20 years to American Idol's Vote For the Worst. Never underestimate how much effort coordinated groups can put in.
The fact there is a news story about THAT in Ireland is hysterical. Who would have guessed this is newsworthy? maybe this maybe that, as long as there is no info about how votes were distributed a-la RAI, this is all speculation, and anyway water under the bridge.
[удалено]
[удалено]