“An irregularity of such magnitude is unheard of.” These are the words that can be read in the EBU (European Broadcasting Unit) communiqué on the scandal that emerged after the voting irregularities in the Eurovision final and semi-finals. The irregularities affected six countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and San Marino. There are suspicions that these countries have agreed to vote for each other. The statement reads: “In the second semi-final, it was observed that four of the six juries involved placed the other five countries in their top five (considering the fact that it is not possible to vote for yourself). One of the juries placed the same countries in the top 6, while another placed four of the five countries in the top 4 and one in the top 7. Four of the six received at least a 12-point set, which is the maximum that can be attributed.” The vote was also considered irregular given that five of the six participating states were not included in the top 8 by any of the other 15 voting countries. Also, four of the six of the same 15 were placed in the last six places.
The recalculation and the allegations of conspiracy
Due to the irregularities found, the EBU decided to replace the voting of the six countries concerned with one calculated on the basis of their previous voting behavior in both the semifinals and the final. Because of this, protests erupted from Romania, who pointed out that the 12 points from Bucharest had gone to Moldova and not to Ukraine, as was the case in the final standings. The news had made the rounds on social media, fueling the theory that the Eurovision Song Contest was being rigged to lead Ukraine to victory. However, as Open proved in a fact check, the Kalush Orchestra would have largely triumphed had the original parts been retained.
confirmation of the decision
Given the data presented in the statement, the EBU confirmed the irregularities and defended the recalculation of the votes. The document also states that the broadcaster “discussed the irregularities with the national television channels involved in order to give them the opportunity to investigate more thoroughly the behavior of the jury in their country”.
