Complete jury and televoting result of the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest

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:

Televoting Jury voting
Combined voting
 1.  Germany (243 pts) Germany (187 pts) Germany (246 pts)
 2.  Turkey (177 pts)  Belgium (185 pts)  Turkey (170 pts)
 3.  Denmark (174 pts)  Romania (167 pts)  Romania (162 pts)
 4.  Armenia (166 pts)  Georgia (160 pts)  Denmark (149 pts)
 5.  Azerbaijan (161 pts)  Israel (134 pts)  Azerbaijan (145 pts)
 6.  Romania (155 pts)  Ukraine (129 pts)  Belgium (143 pts)
 7.  Greece (152 pts)  Denmark (121 pts)  Armenia (141 pts)
 8.  France (151 pts)  Turkey (119 pts)  Greece (140 pts)
 9.  Georgia (127 pts)  Azerbaijan (116 pts)  Georgia (136 pts)
 10.  Serbia (110 pts)  Armenia (116 pts)  Ukraine (108 pts)
 11.  Russia (107 pts)  Greece (110 pts)  Russia (90 pts)
 12.  Spain (106 pts)  Albania (97 pts)  France (82 pts)
 13.  Ukraine (94 pts)  Portugal (69 pts)  Serbia (72 pts)
 14.  Belgium (76 pts)  Bosnia & Herzegovina (65 pts)   Israel (71 pts)
 15.  Iceland (40 pts)  Russia (63 pts)   Spain (68 pts)
 16.  Bosnia & Herzegovina  (35 pts)  Ireland (62 pts)   Albania (62 pts)
 17.  Albania (35 pts)  Norway (61 pts)  Bosnia & Herzegovina (51 pts)
 18.  Moldova (28 pts)  Cyprus (57 pts)   Portugal (43 pts)
 19.  Israel (27 pts)   Iceland (57 pts)   Iceland (41 pts)
 20.  Portugal (24 pts)  Spain (43 pts)   Norway (35 pts)
 21.  Norway (18 pts)  Serbia (37 pts)   Cyprus  (27 pts)
 22.  Belarus (18 pts)  France (34 pts)   Moldova (27 pts)
 23.  Cyprus (16 pts)  Moldova (33 pts)  Ireland (25 pts)
 24.  Ireland (15 pts)  Belarus (22 pts)   Belarus (18 pts)
 25.  United Kingdom (7 pts)
United Kingdom (18 pts)
 United Kingdom (10 pts)


In my view

Juries were reintroduced into the voting process as a means of combatting the blatantly obvious block voting which both the contest and the EBU had come under fire for. While there is no doubt that the participation of national, professional juries is a welcome measure in order to ensure fairness in the overall results of the Eurovision Song Contest, some of the more noticeable differences are actually quite disconcerting. Are these differences merely a product of the varying musical tastes between the general public and the national juries? Although I’m convinced that the introduction of juries on the whole actually saved the contest from certain death and will have managed to dispel some of the accusations of voting bias, there are still obvious weaknesses within the system. The fact that some countries fared considerably worse in the public vote when compared to the jury vote and vice versa will undoubtedly lead to further debate, which, regrettably, may prove damaging to the reputation and the future of the contest.

The opinion expressed in "In my view" are those of the author and are not necessarily the one of
Source:, Dagbladet, EuroVisionary
Read more in the news archive

Liked what you've read? Subscribe to our Eurovision news!