I've worked out what the scores would've been had they kept the traditional way of adding the jury votes and televotes together (adding the top 10 jury vote and televote together rather than the 1-25 rank they used this year).

 

1. Austria 297 (1st 290)

2. The Netherlands 233 (2nd 238)

3. Sweden 215 (3rd 218)

4. Armenia 176 (4th 174)

5. Hungary 130 (5th 143)

6. Russia 106 (7th 89)

7. Ukraine 105 (6th 113)

8. Poland 100 (14th 62)

9. Romania 81 (12th 72)

10. Finland 77 (11th 72)

11. Norway 65 (8th 88)

12. Malta 60 (23rd 32)

13. Switzerland 53 (more votes) (13th 64)

14. Belarus 53 (16th 43)

15. Denmark 51 (more votes) (9th 74)

16. Spain 51 (10th 74)

17. Iceland 50 (15th 58)

18. Azerbaijan 49 (22nd 33)

19. Germany 44 (18th 39)

20. Montenegro 39 (19th 37)

21. United Kingdom 34 (17th 40)

22. Greece 30 (20th 35)

23. Italy 29 (21st 33)

24. San Marino 9 (24th 14)

25. Slovenia 8 (25th 9)

26. France 1 (26th 2)

 

Not much different but Denmark and Spain would've done a lot worse and Poland and Malta would've fared a lot better.

Also, my calculations show that if they'd used the old ranking system in the semi finals would be Portugal qualifying instead of San Marino.

Choosing between Portugal and San Marino for the 10th spot is so hard. 'Quero ser tua' is obviously the superior song, but who could deny Valentina a spot in the final?

I could :D

The BBC have an article up about this!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27371264

Well the countries don't seem to be happy about the jury after these results have been revealed. I wonder if they'll be kept next year - I see the pros and cons of having them and not having them but mAybbbe it would just be fairer to get rid.

That is a really terribly written article, I have to say. It literally just lists about 8 examples, then one where it worked. And that's all.

That is a really terribly written article, I have to say. It literally just lists about 8 examples, then one where it worked. And that's all.

What do you expect from the BBC

I'd normally expect them to have a better article. They have good standards most of the time, this one just ended rather abruptly and has some clunky wording throughout. Even a link to any of the results is missing.

 

Their neutrality clause might play a part in this one, it's hard to say anything aside from the facts here without getting into a discussion about whether the results should have been different or not. Even allegations of corruption towards the Eastern juries, which are pretty obvious to anyone looking at those results, would be breaking that.

I was quite annoyed that the article didn't mention (from my skim read) that the top two were the same for the juries and the televoters. By the article you'd get the impression that they agreed on nothing.

I don't think we ought to get rid of juries, but I'm not too fond of the rule change where it's ranked 1-26 for the juries and the televoters. It makes a couple of the more middle of the road entries that wouldn't ordinarily get recognition do a little better, sure (is that a good thing though?), but it puts so much power into the hands of the juries. They can effectively negatively vote - and as we can see from the Armenian jury putting every favourite other than themselves in the bottom five, clearly a few know that they have that power.

I still can't believe that the Armenian jury did that but it's not like the EBU can punish them for it, there's nothing to say that it wasn't actually just their own preference, as unlikely as it may seem!

Juries time is over. Democracy is the only way forward. Democratic elections results aren't suddenly over-ridden by 5 or 6 powerful people, much as the Murdochs of the world try to. Why are song contests not subject to the same fairness - it means more gimmicky songs doing well, but so be it, not the end of the world...

They were brought back because of the Eastern bias to the voting which has now completely disappeared (along with most of the Eastern countries) :lol:

Take out the juries and with a slightly switched up running order, Russia won in 2012. Juries stay, though I'm not opposed to changing the way they combine the votes of the public and juries.

I'd have been a nervous wreck if the 2012 contest had been decided on televotes alone!

I had a closer look to the juries and I realised they basically are random C-List celebrities.

Or maybe that's just for France, but in France they got previous Eurovision contestants who did terribly, and some unknonw songwritter or something. It makes the whole jury thing even more stupid really. They could at least pick decent people to judge.

It's pretty bad that thousands of paid UK votes for Poland meant absolutely nothing in the end because Carrie Grant and four others decided it was crap!

 

5 people have more power than the whole country, sounds fair! I'm not keen on the jury ranking system at all. As happy as I am for Ruth and Carl Espen, those top ten spots deserved to Donatan and Cleo & Sebalter...

I've only heard of Carrie Grant out of our jury! It is rather unfair that so many people spent money voting for Donatan & Cleo (maybe for the wrong reasons but still :kink:) and yet 5 people who didn't like had the power to totally push it down out of our points altogether. It just seems wrong that the song with more votes from the UK than any other doesn't actually get any points from us because of 5 people not liking it.

I dislike televoting, because it always would be very political. In juries only era we had many good winners. Now the most winners (Sertab, Ruslana, Helena, Lordi, Marija, Loreen, Emmelie, Conchita) are crap. Even 50s and 60s contests with many French chanson entries were better.