It has been a really exciting voting procedure this year, which has been a crime until the last minute. There was a favourite from the beginning, who has won at the end – Duncan Lawrance from the Netherlands. But in many cases he would probably not have won the ESC.
First of all the result comes from 50% jury voting and 50% televoting to give a realistic and fair results and does not polarize too much. Due to the fact that 15 countries did not reach the Grand Final, they are entitled to participate in the voting, as the show is also being broadcasted in all country, which participated in the ESC 2019. If you just look at the results of the finalist without the disqualified countries, like it used to be in earlier days, Italy would have won the ESC in all cases, only televoting, only jury and cumulated results. The Netherlands would have reached #2 and Switzerland #3.
In the case there would have only been jury voting with all the 41 country’s votes, North Macedonia would have been #1, Sweden #2 and The Netherlands #3. The other way round with only televoting, Norway would have made the first place, followed by the The Netherlands #2 and Italy #3.
So in no case The Netherlands would have won clearly. Only with the aggregation of all 41 country’s jury and televotes, the The Netherlands have made the race. So this is a compromise winner. Both single results would have been too strong for other countries that the mean value has been the highest at the end.
Have a look at the deeper analysis with the points of jury (j) and televoting (t):
The Netherlands 493 points (juries: 237 p. / televoting: 256 p. / 1st place)
Duncan from the Netherlands has been seen as the winner long before the contest has started. The fan clubs and betting offices have already predicted the Netherlands to win. But it was not that clear, as the juries put him on place 3 with 237 points, while Sweden and North Macedonia were in the focus. The 256 points from televoting only brought him the second place, after Norway. But when adding the points a third place and a second place made a first place at the end. So the Netherlands is not a clear favourite neither at the juries nor at TV spectators, therefore a kind of compromise winner in a way, but well deserved.
Italy 472 points (juries: 219 p. / televoting: 253 p. / 2nd place)
In the recent years Italy always shapes up very well. Many saw Mahmood to win the ESC, and it was a very tight race between him and Duncan from the Netherlands. At the end Duncan received 21 point more and won the ESC. From the juries he got the fourth highest votes 219 points and from the TV spectators the 3rd place with 253 points, at the end it was the 2nd place for Italy.
Russia 370 points (juries: 125 p. / televoting: 244 p. / 3rd place)
There were high expectations that Sergej would have shaped up better than in Stockholm. With 244 points from the televoters he achieved the 4th place, but the juries only gave 126 points, which means #9. At the end Russia came 3rd, due to the big differences between jury and televoting, the same phenomenon like the winner Duncan from the Netherlands is sharing. At the end the points weigh up and the average points where higher.
Switzerland 359 points (juries: 152 p. / televoting: 207 p. / 4th place)
It seem that Switzerland has found its way back to the successful years. With this contemporary entry and the highly talented and enthusiastic Luca Hänni, a great fourth place in the Grand Final could be reached. If a country really give it’s best with the choice of a good song, everything can be reached. At the end a very well deserved placing could be achieved. This song was also more made for the public than for the juries.
Sweden 334 points (juries: 241 p. / televoting: 93 p. / 5th place)
During the announcement of the jury votes, Sweden was almost the winner, but the few points from the public votes did not make the dream come true for John Lundvik. It’s still unbelievable that such a catchy and modern song with the gospel choir did not get more attention by the public. Maybe this presentation has been too perfect. And a lot of people may thought that Sweden has won so often recently. In the Semi Final 2 Sweden was on the 3rd rank.
Norway 331 points (juries: 40 p. / televoting: 291 p. / 6th place)
The Norwegian entry was the real crowd pleaser. Norway received the highest votes from the public eight times the highest score of 12 points by the tv spectators: Germany, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Iceland, Australia and Ireland. This was a typical Eurovision song which could have also been heard in the 1990’s, probably the only one left nowadays. But it seems that people who want to watch Eurovision also expect music like this. What a pity that the juries did not have the same taste.
North Macedonia 305 points (juries: 247 p. / televoting: 58 p. / 7th place)
This was the surprise of the year. The new name of North Macedonia brought luck. This country has never shaped up that well as an independent country. Tamara has already represented her country in 2008 and did not reach the Grand Final. This year she came second in the Semi Final 2 with this touching ballad called “Proud” which stands for equal right for women. This has impressed mainly the juries in the Grand Final. The public held back their votes for this extraordinary entry. During the announcement of the jury votes, it was a head and head race with Sweden. But the disappointing televote results were undeserved for Tamara. She received the highest votes from the juries and if there would have been only jury voting North Macedonia would have won the ESC. This is another example what impact the gaps between jury voting and televoting can have.
Azerbaijan 302 points (juries: 202 p. / televoting: 100 p. / 8th place)
This song really convinced more juries and the European public. This is the best place for Azerbaijan since 2014. It not a safe bet anymore for Azerbaijan to reach the Top 10 that easily. Maybe the cluttered stage with the robots distracted the attention of the TV viewers. Sometimes less is more.
Australia 284 points (juries: 153 p. / televoting: 131 p. / 9th place)
This Australian entry has been seen on the bottom of the scoreboard before the stage performance has been seen. The Australians knew that they would have no chance at all, so they put everything in it what’s possible. The extraordinary stage show with the wagging poles has never been seen before on a Eurovision stage, but at Madonna’s Rebel Heart tour. Both juries and televoters like that presentation, probably more than the song. At the end it only reached for the 9th place. But it was a kind of dark horse.
Iceland 232 points (juries: 46 p. / televoting: 186 p. / 10th place)
In the Semi Final 1, Iceland received 70 points from the juries, but for the Grand Final they have changed their minds, only 46 points were given by all the 40 entitled countries for Iceland. It shows clearly that the TV spectators thought differently about the extraordinary act, which of course made to polarize. Nobody really believed that this entry could win Eurovision. The highest points from the public came from: Sweden 8 p., Norway 10 p., United Kingdom 8 p., Australia 10 p., Poland 12 p., Hungary 12 p. and Finland 12 p.. Also interesting to see that the highest points came from the Scandinavian countries and also some conservative countries like Poland and Hungary.
Czech Republic 157 points (juries: 150 p. / televoting: 7 p. / 11th place)
This is another surprise. The cool and sympathetic guys from Lake Malawi even made the 2nd place in the Semi Final 1, and received 85 points from televoting. In the Grand Final there were only 7 points given by the public. That means that those points transferenced to other candidates instead. Even if the juries like that entry a lot: Slovenia 12 p., Norway 12 p., Estonia 8 p., Hungary 12 p., Georgia 12 p., Portugal 10 p., Moldova 8 p. and Romania 8 p. During the announcement of the televoting results, a big disappointment could be seen. Another Top 10 placing for the Czech Republic would have been deserved.
Denmark 120 points (juries: 69 p. / televoting: 51 p. / 12th place)
Leonora almost did not qualify for the Grand Final, only by 2 points margin. So a 12th place in the Grand Final is quite a success. Both liked by the juries and televoters, this lovely song brought a different atmosphere to the ESC. The Italian jury awarded Leonora with 12 points! Cyprus 109 points (juries: 77 p. / televoting: 32 p. / 13th place) Generally at 13th place is quite an achievement at Eurovision. But this is a typical fan favourite case. Highly favorized but failed. Many people believed that last year’s 2nd place could be topped this year. Due to the fact that Tamta was even asked to sing last year “Fuego”. That even the juries ranked Tamta higher than the TV viewers is quite a surprise. The stage show was very good, maybe a bit too much calculated and a copy of last year’s entry.
Malta 107 points (juries: 87 p. / televoting: 20 p. / 14th place)
There is a big discrepancy between the higher jury votes and only 20 televoting points. It has to be taken into consideration that the juries cast their votes on Friday night. The chance that the singing qualities might differ is quite high. During the live broadcast on Saturday Michaela’s voice was not the strongest and that’s probably the main reason for such a big gap.
Slovenia 105 points (juries: 46 p. / televoting: 59 p. / 15th place)
Slovenia does not always qualify for the Grand Final, so a 15th place is a solid position. Many people expected this lofi entry a lot higher. That this song would not convince the majority was more or less clear, as it’s a very special kind of music. But the juries could have ranked this a lot higher. The highest points came from Croatia (t) 10 p., Poland (j) 10 p., Serbia (t) 10 p. and Czech Republic (j) 10 p.
France 105 points (juries: 67 p. / televoting: 38 p. / 16th place)
The high expectations of the French entry could not have been fulfilled. Bilal wanted to be the new Conchita with a very androgen look. They have put too much on stage and the message did not come over. A more decent presentation would have resulted into more points. Especially the European public was irritated. In the French national final he could only win because of the televoters, but this is probably a French fan phenomenon.
Serbia 94 points (juries: 35 p. / televoting: 59 p. / 17th place)
Serbia was a safe bet in the qualifying round. Even if the song is not the easiest from the drama and melody it has convinced mainly the TV spectators. This was probably the only real “Balkan” song of the night. The stage setting and Nevena’s appearance accompanied by her strong voice was really matching.
Albania 90 points (juries: 43 p. / televoting: 47 p. / 18th place)
Albania also profits from the diaspora voting, as many Albanian people live in Italy or in the neighbour country North Macedona, both countries gave 12 points from the televoting. This ponderous song was definitely not made for the general European taste of music, but it should point up the traditional roots of Albanian music.
San Marino 77 points (juries: 28 p. / televoting: 65 p. / 19th place)
This is the best result ever for San Marino in ESC history! So congratulation Serhat. San Marino has only made it two times into the Grand Final, Valentina Monetta with “Maybe” – 24th place and now Serhat at the 19th place. The majority of the points he received by the TV spectators in particular Albania 10 p., North Macedonia 8 p., Azerbaijan 10 p., Hungary 6 p., Georgia 10 p., Montenegro 8 p. and Moldova 8 p.. This shows that a catchy song can attract a lot of people and spreads out a lot of cheerfulness.
Estonia 76 points (juries: 28 p. / televoting: 48 p. / 20th place)
It’s a miracle that Estonia has qualified for the Grand Final. The song “Strom” had a certain simplicity which was recognized by the juries. The Swedish singer Victor Crone is an attractive guy and therefore he probably received a lot of points by the female TV spectators. The highest televotes came from the Scandinavian and Baltic neighbours: Latvia 10 p., Lithuania 4p, Finland 8 p, Iceland 3 p, Norway 2 p., Sweden 10 p.
Greece 74 points (juries: 50 p. / televoting: 24 p. / 21st place)
The Greek entry had an extraordinary almost kitschy stage presentation, which probably was the TV viewers first choice. While the juries have been more generous. The unique voice of Katharina was probably also a bit overheard. For a Greek entry the 21st placing is a kind of bad placing, but when Greece reached the finals recently, Top 10 places become more and more seldom.
Spain 54 points (juries: 1 p. / televoting: 53 p. / 22nd place)
And here we have another strange example, the juries obviously did not like the Spanish entry. But the televoters did. At least 53 points Spain received by the European public. This probably also due to the fact that the striking entry Australia with the crazy stage performance caused a lot of discussion afterwards. So the Spanish entry might be overheard. So sometimes the last starting position is not always the best. The TV spectators also might have been tired or drunken at that time.
Israel 35 points (juries: 0 p. / televoting: 35 p. / 23rd place)
This is a strange phenomenon, why do host countries sometimes shape up in a bad or even last place? Especially in the last years: Portugal 2018 – 26th and last place, Ukraine 2017 – 24th place, Austria 2015 – 27th and last place, Norway 2010 – 20th place, Finland 2007 – 17th place, Ukraine 2005 – 19th place, Latvia 2003 – 24th place. This is probably due to two facts. First of all the host country has already won, they are not too eager to win again, due to the high costs and secondly many people in particular televoters think that they just have won, why should they win again, so why shall I call for the host country? In this year’s case it’s bitter as Kobi really sang great, accompanied by a great choir this was a very special and touching moment. It has always been seen as respect for the host country that they receive some good points for not being last.
Belarus 31 points (juries: 18 p. / televoting: 13 p. / 24th place)
There were not many points for Belarus this year, only the Russian jury and the televoters were a bit more generous. In the Semi Final they even made a decent 10th place, almost not qualified as Poland was only 2 points behind. But in the Grand Final, there many better songs. The highlight of this entry were the two acrobatic background dancers.
Germany 24 points (juries: 24 p. / televoting: 0 p. / 25th place)
What a pity for Germany. In the past they often made one of the last ranks, last year they could break the rule and came 4th. This year they are back on the second last place. But this was to be expected. There were too many issues in advance. The singing qualities have been honoured by the juries: Denmark (8 p.), Switzerland (6 p.), Australia (3 p.), Lithuania (5 p.) and Ireland (2p.). But this entry was far too intrusive and did not meet the taste of the over 180 million TV spectators at all. Even the jury votes have been disastrous, as most of the jury members have put Germany on the lower places. The most shocking moment has been the first announcement of the televotes during the live show “sorry Germany, 0 points”. This is due to the new order of announcements, as they start with the lowest number of points in an ascending order.
United Kingdom 11 points (juries: 8 p. / televoting: 3 p. / 26th place)
It was to be expected that the UK would not win. The stage show was too simple and the song not as strong as the Swedish song, as they had the same composer John Lundvik. It seems that the UK did not learn from the past. The UK music scene is vibrant and creative. How can it be that they are not able to send something more appealing? The only countries who gave points were Norway (2 p.), Switzerland (1 p.), Hungary (2 p.), Georgia (1 p.), Armenia (2 p.) only jury points, and 3 televoting points from Ireland, probably from all the UK expats living in Ireland. Maybe the Brexit topic also had an impact of this result.
Public relations, Editor, Journalist
About me: As one of the founders of eurovisionlive.com I am responsible for the interviews with the singers and the editorial content. My passion for the Eurovision Song Contest exists since my early childhood. The exotic music, different cultures and languages have given a lot of inspiration to me. Since my very first ESC in Dublin 1994 I particularly appreciate the get together and friendship of all the nationalities and Riverdance was a thrill!