- 29,976
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It's official, voting in the Eurovision Song Contest is dominated by collusive voting and neighbourly pacts... 
Published recently in the esteemed "Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation", this paper by Derek Gatherer provides the most in-depth study yet into voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. Some of the 'Discussion' sections in the paper are great, it's well worth a read 
Figure 1. Venn diagrams of collusive voting partnerships, significant at the 5% level, for a 5-year window between 2001 and 2005. NL: Netherlands, BE: Belgium, ES: Spain, AD: Andorra, TR: Turkey, BH: Bosnia-Herzegovina, HR: Croatia, SL: Slovenia, MK: Macedonia, AL: Albania, CS: Serbia and Montenegro, GR: Greece, CY: Cyprus, RO: Romania, PL: Poland, UA: Ukraine, RU: Russian Federation, LI: Lithuania, LA: Latvia, EE: Estonia, FI: Finland, SE: Sweden, DK: Denmark, NO: Norway, IS: Iceland. Notice the core of the Balkan Bloc is a 3-way alliance of the former Yugoslav republics of CS, HR and MK (pink)
For those of you who don't know what the Eurovision Song Contest is, it is an annual musical celebration of our European brotherhood, a contest that pits the musical (amateur) talents of nation v nation, whilst at the same time promoting continental unity and togetherness...
In reality, however, there are some sinister undertones...
Many people suspect (if indeed it wasn't stark-staringly obvious), that politics were playing a more significant role than the actual music (evinced by the fact that the votes garnered by some nations bore no reflection on the fact that their songs stank to high heaven). The paper reveals that the most consistent collusive pact is that of Greece and Cyprus, (For the past 4 years, each nation has awarded the other the maximum points possible....) but that the largest bloc of collusive nations is the so-called 'Balkan Bloc', with Bosnia-Herzegovina tipped to be this year's victors... (you heard it here first!)
For us here in the UK, things came to a head in 2004, in the wake of the UK decision to go to war in Iraq with our US (note, non-European) allies. The UK, for the first time in it's history, received 'nil points', for an admittedly dismal performance. However, allegedly the monitor speakers were switched off prior to the UK performance, which meant that the performers couldn't hear themselves sing. Unfortunately, the rest of Europe could
The UK public immediately suspected foul-play was to blame for the totally off-key performance. Commentator Terry Wogan even suggested a connection to Iraq, stopping short of making the other connection that Turkey happened to win that year as well (see section 4.7 of the paper). But some may argue that the UK only has itself to blame, since, as you will notice from the paper, that the original collusive pact was between the UK and France (from 1975-1980, presumably at the expense of the Germans).
So what should be done to this beloved institution? Should it be allowed to continue, should it be judged by a neutral jury of non-Europeans, or should it be scrapped altogether?? Does anyone actually enjoy the music (really) or do you just love to hate it? I think the term 'post-ironic' was invented to described the Eurovision Song Contest, hence why it continues to enjoy (massive) appeal across the continent... what do you think?
Published recently in the esteemed "Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation", this paper by Derek Gatherer provides the most in-depth study yet into voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. Some of the 'Discussion' sections in the paper are great, it's well worth a read
Figure 1. Venn diagrams of collusive voting partnerships, significant at the 5% level, for a 5-year window between 2001 and 2005. NL: Netherlands, BE: Belgium, ES: Spain, AD: Andorra, TR: Turkey, BH: Bosnia-Herzegovina, HR: Croatia, SL: Slovenia, MK: Macedonia, AL: Albania, CS: Serbia and Montenegro, GR: Greece, CY: Cyprus, RO: Romania, PL: Poland, UA: Ukraine, RU: Russian Federation, LI: Lithuania, LA: Latvia, EE: Estonia, FI: Finland, SE: Sweden, DK: Denmark, NO: Norway, IS: Iceland. Notice the core of the Balkan Bloc is a 3-way alliance of the former Yugoslav republics of CS, HR and MK (pink)
For those of you who don't know what the Eurovision Song Contest is, it is an annual musical celebration of our European brotherhood, a contest that pits the musical (amateur) talents of nation v nation, whilst at the same time promoting continental unity and togetherness...
For us here in the UK, things came to a head in 2004, in the wake of the UK decision to go to war in Iraq with our US (note, non-European) allies. The UK, for the first time in it's history, received 'nil points', for an admittedly dismal performance. However, allegedly the monitor speakers were switched off prior to the UK performance, which meant that the performers couldn't hear themselves sing. Unfortunately, the rest of Europe could
The UK public immediately suspected foul-play was to blame for the totally off-key performance. Commentator Terry Wogan even suggested a connection to Iraq, stopping short of making the other connection that Turkey happened to win that year as well (see section 4.7 of the paper). But some may argue that the UK only has itself to blame, since, as you will notice from the paper, that the original collusive pact was between the UK and France (from 1975-1980, presumably at the expense of the Germans).So what should be done to this beloved institution? Should it be allowed to continue, should it be judged by a neutral jury of non-Europeans, or should it be scrapped altogether?? Does anyone actually enjoy the music (really) or do you just love to hate it? I think the term 'post-ironic' was invented to described the Eurovision Song Contest, hence why it continues to enjoy (massive) appeal across the continent... what do you think?
