Weeks of speculation finally came to a close when the complete results of both the public televote and the jury vote were revealed by the EBU. Whereas the first and last positions were undisputable and agreed upon by both voting groups, were the results really as cut and dried as they appeared to be in this year’s final?

Germany gained it’s second victory in the contest with a convincing 76 point lead over runners up, Turkey. However, a closer look at the public and jury votes give us some major upsets and surprises when compared to the actual outcome on the night. The top 5 of the televote result and the combined result of the 2010 Eurovision Song Contestby and large mirrored each other. However, there appear to be some astounding differences between the jury and public voting. If the final result had been based purely on the jury result, then Tom Dice would have given Belgium their best showing since 2003’s Urban Trad and Sanomi, coming in second place, a mere two points behind Lena. Whether or not Turkey’s second place can be put down to diaspora voting is debatable. The fact that there was a significant difference in their public and jury placings – the public placed them second but the juries placed them eighth, has no doubt raised more than a few eyebrows.

Two of the biggest discrepancies between both jury and public voting results are the nineteenth place achieved by Israel in the public vote, whereas the professional jury obviously picked up on qualities in Harel’s performance that went unnoticed by Joe Public, as they placed Israel fifth. Could it be that Israel were the victims of an international boycott owing to the political situation in Palestine? Another major discrepancy is the result of France and Jessy Matador – he really did manage to get the whole of Europe dancing to his entry, as, had the outcome been solely based on their result, he would have ended 4 places higher, coming in eighth. The jury however were not as convinced by Allez! Ola! Olé!, placing it a measly eighteenth!

Serbia was, despite a mediocre result on the night, one of the voting winners in the contest. Despite being extremely popular in the house, Milan only managed a disappointing thirteenth placing. Had the public got their way, he would have given Serbia a respectable tenth place. Had the results been solely down to the juries however, he would have ended even furhter down the field, in eighteenth place. Spain and Daniel Diges’ Algo Pequeñito is yet another instance of condisderable differences between the jury and public vote. He would have gained a twelfth place had the public votes decided the outcome, yet the jury were considerably less impressed and only awarded him twentieth place. Did the disturbance of Jimmy Jump on stage sway the public to cast sympathy votes for the Spanish? Or did the fact that he was given a second chance to perform his entry give him a greater advantage with the public than with the juries?

The jury and public televoting results of the semi finals also had some significant differences. Both Malta, FYR Macedonia and not least Estonia would have gone on to the final, had the jury vote decided the outcome. In the second semi final however, one of the biggest upsets of the contest among fans was the failure of Sweden to qualify. Based on a pure televote result, they would have come in ninth, thus giving them enough points to advance to the final; surely a bittersweet experience for poor Anna. Surprisingly enough, had the Irish result in the second semi depended solely on the public vote, Niamh would have failed to qualify, limping in at thirteenth place, whereas she proved considerably more popular with the professional juries, coming in a very respectable sixth.

The full results were as follows:

Related posts

Get to know the 7 potential Eurovision 2022 host cities

Eurovision 2023: While you had a summer break, this happened in the world of Eurovision