Yes, I know that quite a few people thought that the landslide the Ukrainian winner got in the telephone poll was a scandal, many of those who voted did it probably not based on musical criteria, but did as Sputnik has sung about and opened his heart door.

Now it should be said about those who did this that it was actually perfectly fine, for those who choose to spend money on voting when you can do it in the three finals as it is every year in the ESC actually have only one rule and relate to.

Well, maybe two, one is to send the up to 20 votes they have to the right phone number and the other is to do this within the deadline.

None of those who vote are asked why they vote, it would matter if you were asked about it when you voted and had your vote rejected if the reason was not good enough.

In most televised competitions, we see that those who vote do not always take into account the qualities you should look for in the competition you participate in

. good control of the vocals.

When ESC also has the reputation that some of the shows we get to see are both lavish, weird, quirky, incomprehensible and maybe in someone’s eyes downright bad.

I thus suspect that some people vote for some of these contributions that stand out, perhaps with a bit of the wrong sign, simply just on meat and sometimes such contributions have actually done very well.

In addition, we have the fact that with a suitable open labor market in Europe, many do not live in their country of origin, this spring many millions of Ukrainians have had to flee their homeland, so it is no wonder that many use the chance to vote for their homeland when staying outside just that.

It is pointed out when there is a vote that you can not vote for yourself, that rule only applies when you are in your home country, so that particular rule is quite hollowed out in fact.

In any case, everyone must be allowed to vote as they wish, even according to their heart and in any competition where you let the audience participate in the decision, you must live with this unpredictability.

But, enough about this, Ukraine got the most votes on Saturday and is thus the right winner, something that has passed many houses is that all 6 countries’ juries had their voting rejected and it was the EBU who thus calculated their votes.

The countries concerned are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Montenegro and San Marino and the reason should be that there should have been irregularities during the voting of these juries.

The word irregularity is basically quite difficult to interpret, but in this context one has to wonder whether these countries have either agreed to exchange points among themselves or that the jury members have strongly agreed on how it should be voted.

All the countries involved participated in the second semi-final, but only three of them made it to the final.

Most of the TV companies involved have reacted very sharply to the fact that they were not allowed to participate with their own and sent out statements that they do not understand exactly why they have been discarded.

The information that the votes were canceled must have come very late and none of those involved should have received an explanation of what the irregularities were about.

As many may remember, the head of the ESC, Martin Österdahl, had to read out the votes of three of the countries included in this voting scandal.

They blamed technical problems, but according to Azerbaijani TV, there was no technical error that prevented them from reading their votes.

No, they were so furious at having their votes annulled that they had intended to say that they had actually given their 12 points to Ukraine, but during the final this was changed to Britain getting the best score.

So, obviously to escape some sour point-readers, some technical problems “arose” and it was the boss himself Martin who had to take that job for three countries.

Doubt that this scandal has gone a long way yet, the countries involved will probably demand a proper explanation of why exactly they were caught cheating, there may be some heated EBU meetings in the future.

“Helping each other” in ESC when voting is not a new thing, especially before the semifinals were introduced and the result one year decided if you could join next year made it nice to know that you got a few good points.

Once in the 90’s I spoke to someone from the Icelandic delegation who told me that they had received an inquiry3 about exchanging points, which they naturally rejected.

When you see how the juries vote nowadays, it is reasonably obvious that it is not just voting according to the criteria that the jury should actually work according to.

Every year, the bitter enemies Armenia and Azerbaijan put the opponent’s contribution in absolute last place, this year it will be very strange since both posed with quite ordinary pop songs and did not have any of these countries’ own culture.

I do not know if this was what gave the Azerbaijani jury the fyke, I would rather it may be that it could seem as if the six countries involved tried to help each other to the final place.

It may seem that this plan worked very badly for the three countries that did not make it to the final, San Marino who came closest was a full 46 points away from a final place and since this country does not have its own national telephone provider (they are part of the Italian tele-net) so this country did not get a vote this year.

For information, the votes of these six juries were calculated on the basis of the jury vote in the countries that are in the same voting group as them, the voting groups are largely geographically distributed, Norway is together with the other Nordic countries and Australia.

One can hope that the EBU will come up with a better explanation of how this voting scandal arose, as it appears when there are probably more questions than answers.

In conclusion, if you want to hang someone out with a slightly “doubtful” vote, we can just as easily consider the Norwegian.

Here, 4 out of 5 of the jury members managed to give their first place to Greek-Norwegian Amanda Tenfjord (last jury member put the song in third place), who has probably mainly had a Norwegian music career, talk about voting for their own.

One can well conclude that this with voting is not right and that the cheating opportunities are definitely in place, we can be happy that the EBU obviously takes the job of exposing the cheating seriously.