Two days after the final, there is still much to be done regarding alleged vote fraud among juries from the six participating countries of the Song Contest 2022. The jury’s results were declared void and promptly replaced with other composite points. But what exactly is happening?
It was just after midnight on Sunday when Alessandro Cattelan and Mica at PalaOlimpico started reaching out to scorers in the countries participating in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 for jury points. At the beginning of the tour across Europe and Australia, the European Broadcasting Union suddenly sent Special press release from, that we wrote about earlier†
And the jury vote for six countries from the second semi-final, in which Belgium also took part, turned out to be very suspicious. The judges were thanked for the services provided before the final. Then we found out that it was about the jury’s findings Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and San Marinobecause the full ratings for each member of the jury in those countries are missing The official website of the Eurovision Song Contest† while, vrtnws.be I learned from a good source that the juries involved mutually agreed to reward each other with points.
No new juries were called, but instead points were decided based on other countries’ voting results, the European Broadcasting Union reported. There is also the greatest amount of secrecy about it. We know this isn’t the first time that jury findings have ended up in the trash for alleged cheating. In 2014 it happened for Georgian jury points, in 2015 for those from Montenegro and North Macedonia. It is remarkable that two of these countries are mentioned again.
Six of the twenty nations that voted in the second semi-final had a combined jury result based on other votes. This means that Fifteen percent of the total score It is defined this way. It is worth noting that the EBU is not more transparent about the method chosen and how the countries that receive the points are determined.
A look at the jury scores of the six countries involved in the second semi-finals and final shows us that it really is very similar To be. On Thursday evening, the six gave 12 points to Sweden and a tenth to Australia. The points of Poland and Romania are literally identical, in both the semi-finals and the final. The same applies to the last points of Azerbaijan and Georgia.
The announcers and pointers are stunned
However, the storage is not over yet. Announcer off Georgia And Romania Let’s already know that the jury’s results were actually quite different. at the black Mountain It was emphasized that the local jury’s verdict was in line with the general conclusion, so there was nothing suspicious. and in Azerbaijan And again in Georgia and Romania it was already said that there were absolutely no technical problems during registration. We haven’t seen any indications in those countries, but we’ve seen Executive Supervisor Martin Österdahl who announced the higher score himself. Officially, this happened because a good wireless connection could not be established, but according to the same indications, this turned out to be not true at all. Pictures have already appeared on social media roman official speaker who was ready to hand out points, but was stunned the moment she heard that she was being skipped†
The question is how the EBU will deal with the issue further and what steps will be taken to prevent jurors from countries from trying to be too friendly with each other again. In addition, there is also a need for more transparency about the methods used to determine the surrogate outcome, as they can have serious consequences for the final outcome. There is a possibility that the organization itself will want more control over who sits on juries and under what conditions they present their views. An important precedent for this was set in 2004. Since that year, the European Broadcasting Union has been working with the German company Digame to count calls from all participating countries and thus determine points. Before that, broadcasters were doing it themselves, but even then there was a lot of cheating and bartering.
“Communicator. Avid web fanatic. Alcohol practitioner. Award-winning organizer. Bacon advocate.”