If you change the formula to weight by the square-root of population (as in a current EU proposal for voting), then you still get Armenia winning but with Russia only falling to 2nd. This system reduces the effect or larger countries deciding everything.

It doesn’t, however, fix the problem that both Armenia and Russia’s entries were terrible.

I totally agree that the voting system needs changing. Why not keep the system as it is, but permit the bigger countries to have populous departements vote separately. We could have Scotland, London, Ile-de-France, Berlin represented with own songs, or, to limit the number of entries, have certain areas divided by population enter (like one entry for the entire scandinavia, one for the baltics etc), allthough I fear that would promote wars.

Apart from this problem remains the fact that the competition has a very small following and low status in big countries like Italy and France, which is really sad and detracts from the competition.

When it comes to who should’ve won, musically no-one can tell who /should/ be the winner. However certain countries are making more of an effort to win touring lots of places and really making an effort to select the most popular artist representing their country. Some of the eastern european songs have something new and fresh also in their composition and music. Ethic rhythms and melodies like the Armenian and greek song had, also prominent in the winner of 2004, is fresh, it’s works both in RnB clubs and in a more traditional club setting.

The music HAS changed a lot after the former soviet countries were included and maybe the werstern countries should not only blame the system (allthough I agree it’s definetly not perfect)but also try to elevate the status of the competition and select some music that has a chance of winning. After all, it
s not ALL About political votes, something the position of armenia, norway and other countries proves this year…

I definitely think a Eurovision voting reform is necessary. But some of the songs on the top spots were actually good and earned the recognition they received.

Suppose your competition involves just three countries, on large country of 100 million and two small countries of 1 million: whoever the large country votes for will always win – hence the large country never will. The problem remains with a greater number of countries.

Maybe one way around the problem is to “fictionnally” make each country give themselves 12 points (times their population) in your excell sheet if they are among the finalists.

In the existing system where all countries have an equal vote, this neutralises voting for oneself (you add 12 points to each participating country). But in a weighted system, you give an advantage to the larger countries which should compensate the handicap I mentionned. I haven’t tested it on the excell sheet though. feel like trying it?

Esperanto works! I learned it in my late teens, and I’ve used it in speech and writing in a dozen countries over recent years. As a planned auxiliary language, it is easier to learn and use than national tongues.