Is Eurovision really 'all political'? Why the Balkan voting bloc isn't the only reason the UK doesn't win
As the most anticipated event of the 2016 calendar draws ever nearer, tensions are running high: people up and down the country are considering and re-considering their position, reflecting on our national identity, the intricacies of an aged voting system, our relationship with our European neighbours, and the result’s knock-on effect on the European referendum. Sorry – you thought I meant the European referendum? No, I’m talking about the 61st Eurovision Song Contest
Does Eurovision voting have anything to do with music at all? Many people complain that some participating –such those in Scandinavia or the Balkans – only vote for each other, and points aren’t awarded for the quality of the entry. It’s a topic UK islanders feel especially strongly about: A YouGov poll in 2013 showed Britons have the strongest conviction that “it’s all political.” Sir Terry Wogan famously stepped down as UK host in 2008 for this very reason, claiming that the event was no longer a music competition.
Bonnie Tyler described the voting as “unbelievable” after she came 19th of 26 finalists in 2013, and Simon Webbe, of 2011 UK entry Blue, said it was “often not really about the song but who your neighbours are.”
A competition in which entries such as Scooch and Spain’s Rodolfo Chikilicuatre gain any points at all is clearly not solely about the music.
But is it all political? Each country in Eurovision splits its vote between a professional jury and a public televote. It then awards 10 sets of points, by drawing up a list of their 10 favourite songs – giving 12 points to the first, 10 to the second, and then eight, seven, six and so forth to the rest.
In 2016, the way these points are announced has been altered, to ensure the winner is not revealed before all the countries have announced their votes, but the system itself hasn’t changed.
We’ve added up all the points given by each country to every other between 1994 and 2016 to find out who our real friends are on the continent. We've stripped out the results for Australia – who are returning in 2016 for their second ever Eurovision competition.
When is Eurovision 2016 and how can I watch it?
How the votes break down
The Eurovision Song Contest was established in 1956 to unite European countries after the devastation of the Second World War, but voting patterns seem to show it has united some areas more than others.
While these aren't exactly Game of Thrones-style warring factions, certain groups of countries tend to score each other’s acts favourably on the night, and are therefore known as voting blocs.
Look, for instance, at the voting record of Belarus. Sometimes called “Europe’s last dictatorship,” it only split from the Soviet Union in 1990.
Since then, it has awarded more than twice as many points to Russia as to any other country, with almost a third of them going to either Russia or Ukraine. If that doesn’t sound like much, remember that the voting system forces each country to spread many of its points across fourth, seventh and 10th preferences.
Or look at the relationship between Greece and Cyprus. Terry Wogan referred to this exchange specifically, saying it was “ridiculous. But still they do it. They just don't care."
Sure enough, our data shows Cyprus has awarded almost three times as many points to Greece as to its second most common preference, Russia. And Greece has reciprocated by giving more than twice as many points to Cyprus as anyone else.
What are the major voting blocs?
While the exact parameters of voting blocs can vary slightly from study to study, the main ones are:
? The Balkans – the countries of former Yugoslavia, as well as Romania and Albania.
? The former Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe
? Scandinavia – This includes the main Nordic nations as well as Iceland, Lithuania Denmark and Latvia. Would ABBA have been quite so successful if they couldn’t rely on points from Finland and Norway?
Most of the voting blocs seem to be based on proximity, but not all. For example, the UK and Ireland often exchange favourable votes with Malta. Indeed, Ireland and Malta were two of only three countries who awarded Electro Velvet points last year. This could be thought of as an unconventional bloc.
Blocs are not rigid, and some studies split them slightly differently. For example, a 2014 study conducted by UCL and Imperial College grouped the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia with the former USSR, forming a giant bloc which they said split into two more-or-less random groups each year.
In his 2008 study into Eurovision voting alliances, Dr Derek Gatherer identified six countries which are still generally considered to be unattached to any kind of vote exchange: Monaco, France, Israel, Switzerland, Portugal and Germany.
Being part of a blog doesn’t always secure you success: Despite being part of the Scandinavian bloc, Norway is still the unluckiest country in Eurovision history, coming last a record 11 times, and leaving the contest with nul points 4 times.
But this year, Sweden could have a stronger chance of winning since it is the only Nordic country in the contest and its neighbours could vote, giving another Swedish success after so many.
Is there negative bloc voting?
While it seems clear that countries vote positively for their neighbours, this doesn’t necessarily mean that other European countries, such as those in the West, are being actively discriminated against. Statisticians from UCL and Imperial College found that no country systematically gives another low points.
However, there is still plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In 2014, Armenia (who came fourth in the contest) was ranked last in the Azerbaijan televote, and by the Azeri jury. The Armenian voters and jury gave Azerbaijan the same treatment, although the Azeri act fared less well in general (placing 22 of 26). It’s been suggested that the reason behind this negative voting was bad-feeling stemming from the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended in 1994. Last year, the trends were much the same, both countries ranking last in the others’ vote.
Eurovision 2016 odds: Who should you be betting on?
Is it political?
In some cases, geographical bias is pretty hard to ignore. Last year, on the day Ireland voted to legalise gay marriage, Russia – with its poor gay rights record – was a controversial entry. Despite the country’s consistently high Eurovision scores (they have made the top three seven times in the last 15 years), many people were unsure how their entry, Polina Gagarina, would be received: Anti-booing sound reducers were even installed in the arena.
However, with solid voting blocs still in place, Russia came a narrow second to Sweden’s M?ns Zelmerl?w, who celebrated his win by saying: "We are all heroes, no matter who we love."
William Lee Adams, founder of Eurovision news site Wiwibloggs, suggested “Russia could show up without a song and they could still make the final”, such is the unwavering nature of the ex-Soviet vote.
More generally, look at the points for Bosnia and Herzegovina. When our data starts, it was locked in a vicious war between Serbian, Croatian and Muslim ethnic groups.
Today, those same divides are visible in the voting data. Turkey and Croatia are the first and second most popular pieces, and Serbia is the fourth – indicating different groups still vote for different countries.
Meanwhile, the massive preference for Turkey in Germany’s voting patterns testifies to the size of that country’s Turkish population.
Still, there are other explanations. Acts who are already well known tend to do well in the competition, and performers are bound to be familiar in the countries close to where they are from. Marija ?erifovi?, who won the contest for Serbia in 2007, had already been producing music five years prior to being selected for Eurovision. Her performances at festivals and events in Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia meant she already had a following in these countries, and therefore received more points from the Balkan bloc.
We can see this working in favour of Western acts as well as Eastern ones. The UK for example, gave Jedward (Jedward!) maximum or near maximum points two years in a row. This is probably because British voters knew the act after their controversial appearance on X Factor at the peak of the show’s success.
When the UK tried a similar tack, organising a European tour for 2009 entry Jade Ewen, it worked out well, Ewen came in at a respectable fifth place, a big improvement on our last place performance in 2008.
Eurovision officials are generally at pains to point out the geographical patterns in voting may just be down to taste. Many neighbouring countries share a similar media landscape, language and therefore musical preference. However, many people still feel there are instances where a country’s vote is not based on the song.
Is it a problem for the UK?
The UK hasn’t had a great run in Eurovision recently. We’ve come last three times in the last 13 years, and only two of our last 15 contestants have been placed in the top 10. Electro Velvet came a disappointing 24th of 27 countries last year, and 2016 hopefuls Joe and Jake’s chances of winning currently sit between 50:1 and 100:1.
And countries that aren’t part of the main voting blocs have still done well. Germany for example, generally considered to be unattached to any established bloc, won in 2010 with high school student Lena gaining points from over two thirds of the participating countries with the song Satellite. They also however came last in 2015, with entrant Ann Sophie gaining the dreaded nul points.
Although it mostly favours Eastern Europe, the UK has certainly benefitted from biased voting. Malta gave maximum points to the tuneless, soon-to-be-reality-show-contestants Scooch in 2007. Australia, on the other hand, a new competitor thousands of miles from Europe that isn't part of any established voting blocs, failed to give our act any points this year, implying politics probably isn't the sole barrier to our Eurovision success.
Bloc Voting is undoubtedly a big part of Eurovision, but it’s not the only reason we don’t do well.