The Weirdest Jury Votes in Eurovision History

Professional juries are meant to bring balance, professionalism, and taste to the glittery world of Eurovision. They follow rules set down in the EBU’s mysterious ‘Green Guide’. But sometimes, they bring spreadsheets, sabotage, or sheer incompetence. From reverse ballots and live-streamed leaks to full-blown international scandals, here are the weirdest, wildest, and most jaw-dropping jury debacles in the contest’s history — proof that even the adults in the room sometimes drop the ball.

The 2022 Jury Collusion Scandal

What the hell happened:
In the second semi-final of Eurovision 2022, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) identified irregular voting patterns among six countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, and San Marino. These juries appeared to have ranked each other disproportionately high, suggesting a coordinated effort to influence the results.

The fallout:
The EBU invalidated these jury votes for both the semi-final and the grand final, replacing them with aggregated scores based on other countries with similar voting histories. This unprecedented move led to the removal of jury voting in semi-finals from 2023 onwards, shifting the responsibility solely to public televoting.

Belarus 2019: The Aggregated Vote Mishap

What the hell happened:
After the Belarusian jury was dismissed for revealing their semi-final votes prematurely, the EBU used an aggregated result to represent Belarus’s jury vote in the final. However, due to a human error, the wrong aggregated result was used during the live broadcast, leading to incorrect points being awarded.

The fallout:
The EBU acknowledged the mistake and corrected the final scoreboard days later. This incident highlighted the complexities and potential pitfalls of using aggregated jury votes.

Denmark 2016: Backwards Voting

What the hell happened:
Danish juror Hilda Heick mistakenly submitted her rankings in reverse order during both the semi-final and the final. As a result, her least favourite songs received the highest points and vice versa.

The fallout:
While the overall contest results remained unaffected, the incident underscored the importance of clear guidelines and checks for jury members to prevent such errors.

Russia 2016: Jury Deliberation Livestreamed

What the hell happened:
Russian jury member Anastasia Stotskaya live-streamed a portion of the jury deliberations during the dress rehearsal, revealing discussions and rankings, which is against Eurovision rules.

The fallout:
Stotskaya was removed from the jury, and her votes were invalidated. The incident raised concerns about the confidentiality and integrity of jury voting processes.

Georgia 2014: Identical Jury Rankings

What the hell happened:
All five Georgian jury members submitted identical rankings for the final, an event deemed statistically improbable and suggestive of collusion.

The fallout:
The EBU disqualified Georgia’s jury vote for the final, relying solely on the public televote to represent the country’s points.

Azerbaijan 2013: Alleged Vote Buying

What the hell happened:
Reports emerged alleging that Azerbaijani officials orchestrated a scheme to buy votes in other countries by paying individuals to vote multiple times for their entry.

The fallout:
While the EBU investigated, they couldn’t conclusively link the allegations to the Azerbaijani broadcaster. A threatened three-year ban never came to pass. Nonetheless, the incident prompted the EBU to implement stricter voting regulations and monitoring.

Belgium 1983: Jury Protest Vote

What the hell happened:
Sometimes, even the national finals where songs get shortlisted for Eurovision prove troublesome. The Belgian national selection in 1983 saw the jury controversially choose the avant-garde song “Rendez-vous” by Pas de Deux over more popular entries. The decision was met with public outrage, including audience walkouts and political debates. The song finished 18th at Eurovision 1983 with 13 points.

The fallout:
The incident highlighted tensions between jury preferences and public opinion, leading to discussions about the role and influence of juries in national selections.

Enjoy just how avant-garde it was – prepare to be shocked!