Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - is there any point in having a public vote? 

The identities of every single juror from every single country are always published on the Eurovision website, and each broadcaster's spokesperson is furnished with the identities of the five jurors for their own country so that can state those in their commentary, as Graham did on the BBC for the UK. Incidentally the only one of the five UK jurors from this year that you might have heard of was Louise Redknapp. On the detailed voting page they also state all five jurors individual vote rankings for every single country, but only as Juror A, Juror B up to Juror E, rather than identifying which ranking was from which actual individual. It's these breakdowns by juror that in a past year allowed Eurovision nerds to identify that one of the jurors had seemingly ranked things in broadly the opposite order to their fellow jurors from their country, and this was later confirmed as an error on that particular lady's part in misunderstaning the ranking system being used. And as far as the televotes go they normally also confirm afterwards which countries televotes either didn't exist in the first place, or turned out to be unable to be used and had to be statistically generated based on their neighbouring countries voting patterns and their own past history. Typically this is very small countries like San Marino (who can only use the Italian phone network and therefore cannot have their own televote via telephony), or some specific countries where there was either very low interest that year and thus few votes received, or where there was a technical problem with their phone lines or local problems with their infrastructure due to extreme weather or war. eurovision.tv/event/malmo-2024/grand-final/jury

You're on point regarding jury. We don't know who they are and how were they chosen. I think this is a good sistem, it just needs few changes maybe, polishing and transparency. However, it seems odd that so many juries (or most of them?) gave 12 points to the same contestant. Idk, Just my impression but feels odd.

LOL the better question is whether there's any point in having a jury vote

I do not think that the public vote contributes to the result. They tell us all to vote, but HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE VOTES GO THERE? I don't think they do! The finalists & the winners are already known & they make sure that it happens the way they want. We all want it to NOT be political... Don't make me laugh!!! BUT... it's 'political' for some & not for others. Wake up guys!

Yes - there is. A certain other country proved that you can just weaponise the base to get a song that doesn't deserve the win crowned - had Baby Lasagna not been there they would have been top of the public vote. Juries proved the buffer to ensure that didn't happen. Although we did get some great winners in the televote only years - Molitva, Hard Rock Hallelujah and Wild Dances spring to mind- the last winner under that system was Believe. This was an incredibly mid song that most fans don't actually like that much in retrospect which won because of flashy staging, including (I shit you not) an Olympic ice skater, and the fame in Eastern Europe of the Russian singer Dima Bilan. The first winner of the televoters that the juries didn't agree with was Running Scared - another mid song that maybe well have succeeded because of Azerbaijan vote rigging. The juries wanted a returning Italy with Madness of Love - a skillfully performed jazz song - to win but the televoters in their infinite wisdom put the kibosh on that. The juries also signal boosted the Danish entry a really good indie rock song called New Tomorrow. Most fans these days advocate for Popular a typical soulless Swedish song with nasty incel entitlement lyrics so they haven't learnt. I have some issues with juries too - I sympathise with those who are angry about Baby Lasagna not doing it for Croatia despite overwhelming public support. I wanted Kaarija to win last year for Finland. I also didn't like the juries signal boosting boring ballads like Bridges. However they also have points to Spain's artistic modern flamenco song Eeaa which televoters had bottom of their ranking and signal boosted the great Austrian song that opened Whilst the Hell is Edgar and other great songs like Promise from Australia and My Sister's Crown from Czechia which would have got overlooked otherwise. Whilst Solo from Poland a basic pop song which was selected in highly dubious circumstances was also in the top ten of the televote. This year us in the UK are grateful to the juries for giving us any points whatsoever - and ensured we don't finish below a complete joke entry with a guy capering round without any trousers on for most of it and Norway, who were just robbed by both sets of voters. They selected a great song as a winner and they actually pleasantly surprised me by having the cojones to give Ireland enough points to finish in sixth.. Someone else pointed out that actually juries decieding the winner may well actually paradoxically be a result of televote only semis as a lot of the jury bait songs that don't appeal to televoters and/or which flop on the night haven't made it in to the final for the past two years when the juries have decieded the winner.

They mean money

Hi Maz, no 1 fan here, now I'm of an age when this show was a bit of fun, and like you, we would sit as a family, and pick our favourites to win, I wont give it the time of day now, ruin by politics, basis voting, had its day move on, I live near the sea so I just go watch the waves, regards

We should get rid of the juries. They are not the professionals they are supposed to be, and the power they hold over the results is disproportionate. 200+ juries vs. millions of paying voters, and they have equal say over the results? It's not a fair system.

It was Croatia - Israel - Ukraine. UK Nil Points.

They mean MONEY

What were the Happy Endings in Germany compared to Eurovision?

its all business

Israel should have won the Eurovision this year.