|RANK||JURY RESULT (and actual place)||TELEVOTING RESULT||ACTUAL RESULT|
|3||United Kingdom (5)||Turkey||Azerbaijan|
|5||Estonia (6)||Greece||United Kingdom|
|7||Turkey (4)||Bosnia & Herzegovina||Greece|
|9||Israel (16)||Armenia||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|10||Moldova (14)||United Kingdom||Armenia|
|12||Bosnia & Herzegovina (9)||Ukraine||Ukraine|
Above you can see a table that I have compiled showing how Eurovision 2009 would have resulted if either the jury or the televoters had possessed all the deciding power. There are not too many drastic differences from the eventual combined rankings, although I am sure nations such as Azerbaijan are glad that the jury’s 8th place for them turned to a bronze medal thanks to the people at home. Similarly, I can only imagine how bitter countries like Malta are in that the professionals thought much more highly of their entries than the slightly partisan viewers. And that is what all of this chaos comes down to – the whole reason for reintroducing the juries was to reduce the effect of bloc voting on Eurovision.
So did it work?
Looking at how only the televoters doled out their points compared to the combined results, it looks like the answer is not a definitive yes, but a quite possibly. When was the last time the UK and France were out of the hellish bottom of the scoreboard? Quite a while. And we can see that countries who have taken their places, such as Sweden (who have a few neighbours that they can usually rely on to help them reach the top) have been negatively affected. But for some, like Germany and Spain, the battle is far from over.
In my opinion, the jury should be kept, and perhaps have their power increased over the next few years to ensure that it is the song, and not the nationality, that is the focus. But let’s hope they don’t eliminate the fun of televoting for good one day (not that I can; I have to get my European online friends to do it for me). Aurovoir.