Voting System
This document delineates the comprehensive voting system employed in the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC), as administered under the auspices of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). This protocol is meticulously designed to ascertain the ultimate outcome of the Contest through the integration of professional and public input, thereby ensuring impartiality and accuracy in result tabulation.
You can find the full regulations on the EBU website.
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT!
1. Dual Voting System
The final results of the Eurovision Song Contest are derived from two distinct sets of points, each contributing to the aggregate score of every competing entry. This bifurcated approach is implemented to balance expert musical assessment with broad public appeal.
- National Juries: One set of points originates from national juries, which are composed of music industry professionals appointed by each participating broadcaster. The deliberation and scoring by these juries are conducted under stringent oversight to preclude undue influence or bias.
- Public Televoting: The second set of points is derived from public televoting conducted within each participating country. This mechanism permits widespread public engagement and reflects the popular sentiment towards the competing entries. 1.1. Semi-Final Voting Protocol In the Semi-Finals, qualification to the Grand Final is determined solely by the audience televote. The scores submitted by national juries in the Semi-Finals are retained exclusively for backup purposes. These jury scores shall be utilized only in the event of a valid audience vote failure, thereby ensuring a contingency for result determination under unforeseen technical or logistical impediments. 1.2. Grand Final Voting Protocol In the Grand Final, both the national juries' points and the public televote points contribute equally, representing a 50/50 split, to the aggregate final score of each entry. This balanced methodology ensures that the ultimate victor is a synthesis of critical acclaim and popular approbation. The separate presentation of these two distinct sets of points during the results announcement further underscores their individual significance.
2. "Rest of the World" Vote
An aggregated vote, derived from viewers situated in non-participating countries and cast via an authorized online platform, contributes an additional set of points. This collective "Rest of the World" vote is accorded the same weight as that of one participating country in both the Semi-Finals and the Grand Final. This inclusion broadens the democratic base of the Contest, acknowledging its global viewership and impact beyond the traditional European Broadcasting Area.
3. Point Allocation Methodology
Each participating country shall award two sets of points (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12) to their ten most favored songs, with the highest ranked song receiving 12 points. This ordinal ranking system ensures clear differentiation between preferred entries. It is expressly stipulated that no country may cast a vote for its own entry, a fundamental principle designed to maintain fairness and prevent self-serving favoritism within the competition. This rule has been a cornerstone of the voting system since its inception in 1957.
4. Jury Composition and Conduct
Each national jury shall comprise five music industry professionals. The selection of these jurors is undertaken by the respective national broadcasters, with criteria emphasizing professional background, diversity in gender and age, and an absence of conflicts of interest. These jurors are bound by a strict code of conduct, requiring independent evaluation of entries based upon criteria such as vocal capacity, originality of composition, stage performance, and overall impression. Jurors are prohibited from having any connection, whether personal or professional, to contestants that could compromise their impartiality. Furthermore, to ensure a regular rotation of expertise and to prevent undue influence, a juror may serve on a national jury only once every three years. Jury votes are cast based on the second Dress Rehearsal of each show, which provides a full and representative performance for assessment, conducted under conditions identical to the live broadcast. An independent notary oversees the jury gathering to assure adherence to all regulatory procedures.
5. Televoting Mechanism
Public televoting is facilitated via various accessible channels, including telephone calls, SMS messages, or the official Eurovision mobile application. Participating broadcasters bear the responsibility for establishing voting tariffs, which are subject to the prevailing national legislation of their respective territories. Viewers are generally permitted to cast up to 20 votes, thereby allowing for multiple expressions of preference. The entire televoting process is subject to rigorous live monitoring by a dedicated team of trained professionals. This oversight is specifically designed to detect and mitigate any attempts to unduly influence the voting outcome, including, but not limited to, instances of bulk voting or other irregular patterns that could compromise the integrity of the results. The Pan-European Response Platform (PERP), developed by the EBU’s official voting partner, processes all televotes to ensure compliance with established rules.
6. Tie-Breaking Procedures
In the event that two or more entries achieve an identical aggregate final score, specific tie-breaking rules are invoked to determine the definitive ranking and ensure a singular victor. The primary criterion for resolution shall be the entry that received the higher number of points from the public televote. This precedence granted to the public vote reflects its significance in the overall outcome. Should a tie persist following this initial criterion, further sequential criteria shall be applied until a singular ranking is established. These subsequent criteria include, but are not limited to, the number of countries from which points were received by each tied entry, followed by the number of 12-point scores, then 10-point scores, and so forth, in descending order of points awarded. This exhaustive process is designed to ensure a clear and unambiguous determination of all placings.