The Eurovision Song Contest is not only the largest song contest worldwide but also probably the world’s largest election for a non-political office. In this article, we are interested in the voting behaviour of Eurovision viewers. Do they vote sincerely, strategically according to rational choice assumptions (i.e. for the song they believe will be the likely winner) or for another song? Using data from a large-scale survey carried out in Europe, we find interesting voting patterns with regard to these questions. Roughly one-fourth of the survey participants would vote for either their preferred song or for the song they think will win. However, the percentage of strategic voters is lower (11%). In contrast, many individuals (i.e. 36% of participants) would vote for another song, one that is neither their preferred song, the likely winner, nor a rational choice. The reasoning behind these remaining votes may include neighbourhood voting, ethnic voting, and voting for one’s favourite European country.
AbramsonPRAldrichJHBlaisAet al. (2010) Comparing strategic voting under FPTP and PR. Comparative Political Studies43: 61–90.
2.
AkinA (2013) Turkey, the Middle East & the Media ‘the reality is not as it seems from Turkey’: Imaginations about the Eurovision Song Contest from its production fields. International Journal of Communication7(2013): 19.
3.
AldrichJBlaisAStephensonL (2016) Strategic Institutions and Political Institutions. Mimeo: Duke University.
4.
AllatsonP (2007) ‘Antes cursi que sencilla’: Eurovision Song Contests and the Kitsch-Drive to Euro-Unity. Culture, Theory and Critique48(1): 87–98.
5.
AnderssonINiedomyslT (2010) Clamour for glamour? City competition for hosting the Swedish tryouts to the Eurovision Song Contest. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie101(2): 111–125.
6.
AmeggerJHerzM (2016) Economic and destination image impacts of mega-events in emerging tourist destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management5(2): 76–85.
7.
BakerC (2008) Wild dances and dying wolves: Simulation, essentialization, and national identity at the Eurovision Song Contest. Popular Communication6(3): 173–189.
8.
BakerC (2016) The ‘gay olympics’? The Eurovision Song Contest and the politics of LGBT/European belonging. European Journal of International Relations. DOI: 1354066116633278.
9.
BarclayS (2016) The Eurovision Song Contest: Lugano 1956–Stockholm 2016. London: Silverthorn Publishing.
10.
BlaisADostie-GouletEBodetMA (2009) Voting strategically in Canada and Britain. In: GrofmanBBlaisABowlerS (ed.) Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. New York: Springer.
BlangiardoMBaioG (2014) Evidence of bias in the Eurovision song contest: modelling the votes using Bayesian hierarchical models. Journal of Applied Statistics41(10): 2312–2322.
13.
BohlmanPV (2004) The music of European nationalism: cultural identity and modern history. Santa Barbara: abc-clio.
14.
BolinG (2006) Visions of Europe cultural technologies of nation-states. International Journal of Cultural Studies9(2): 189–206.
15.
Bruine de BruinW (2005) Save the last dance for me: unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica118(3): 245–260.
16.
CassidayJA (2014) Post-Soviet Pop goes gay: Russia’s trajectory to Eurovision Victory. The Russian Review73(1): 1–23.
17.
CharronN (2013) Impartiality, friendship-networks and voting behavior: Evidence from voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. Social Networks35(3): 484–497.
18.
ChristensenMChristensenC (2008) The after-life of Eurovision 2003: Turkish and European social imaginaries and ephemeral communicative space. Popular Communication6(3): 155–172.
19.
CleridesSStengosT (2012) Love thy neighbor, love thy kin: Strategy and bias in the Eurovision Song Contest. Ekonomia15(1). Available at: https://works.bepress.com/sofronis_clerides/11/ (accessed 2 August 2016).
20.
ColemanS (2008) Why is the Eurovision Song Contest ridiculous? Exploring a spectacle of embarrassment, irony and identity. Popular Communication6(3): 127–140.
21.
CoxGW (1997) Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
DekkerA (2007) The Eurovision Song Contest as a ‘friendship’ network. Connections27(3): 53–58.
23.
DuvergerM (1951.) Les Partis Politiques. Paris, France: Colin.
24.
FennDSulemanOEfstathiouJet al. (2006) How does Europe make its mind up? Connections, cliques, and compatibility between countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications360(2): 576–598.
25.
FisherSD (2004) Definition and measurement of tactical voting: the role of rational choice. British Journal of Political Science34(1): 152–166.
26.
FrickerKGluhovicM (2013) Performing the ‘New’ Europe: Identities, Feelings and Politics in the Eurovision Song Contest. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
GathererD (2004) Birth of a meme: The origin and evolution of collusive voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission8(1). Available at: http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/gatherer_d_letter.html (accessed 2 August 2016).
28.
GathererD (2006) Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest simulation with actual results reveals shifting patterns of collusive voting alliances. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation9(2). Available at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/1.html (accessed 2 August 2016).
29.
GathererD (2007) Voting in Eurovision: Shared tastes or cultural epidemic?Empirical Text and Culture Research3(1): 72–83.
30.
GibbardA (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica41: 4587–4601.
31.
GinsburghVNouryAG (2008) The Eurovision Song Contest is voting political or cultural?European Journal of Political Economy24(1): 41–52.
32.
HaanMADijkstraSGDijkstraPT (2005) Expert judgment versus public opinion – Evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest. Journal of Cultural Economics29(1): 59–78.
33.
HighfieldTHarringtonSBrunsA (2013) Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom. Information, Communication & Society16(3): 315–339.
34.
IglesiasJD (2015) Eurovision song contest and identity crisis in Moldova. Nationalities Papers43(2): 233–247.
35.
JohnsonED (2014) A new song for a new motherland: Eurovision and the rhetoric of post-Soviet national identity. The Russian Review73(1): 24–46.
36.
JonesSSuboticJ (2011) Fantasies of power: Performing Europeanization on the European periphery. European Journal of Cultural Studies14(5): 542–557.
37.
KressleyKM (1978) Eurovision: Distributing costs and benefits in an international broadcasting union. Journal of Broadcasting22(2): 179–193.
38.
LemishD (2004) ‘My kind of campfire’: The Eurovision Song Contest and Israeli gay men. Popular Communication2(1): 41–63.
39.
McAllisterIStudlarDT (1991) Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinion polls and electoral choice in Britain, 1979–1987. Journal of Politics53: 720–741.
40.
McKelveyRDOrdeshookPC (1972) A general theory of the calculus of voting. In: HerdonJFBerndJL (eds) Mathematical Applications in Political Science, VI. Charlottesville, VA: The University of Virginia Press, pp.32–78.
41.
MerzigerPKlausN (2009) Euro Pop: The production and consumption of a European popular culture in the twentieth century, German-Italian Centre Villa Vigoni, Menaggio, 811 June 2009. Creative Industries Journal2(2): 203–209.
42.
MiazhevichG (2010) Sexual excess in Russia’s Eurovision performances as a nation branding tool. Russian Journal of Communication3(3–4): 248–264.
43.
MiazhevichG (2012) Ukrainian nation branding off-line and online: Verka Serduchka at the Eurovision Song Contest. Europe-Asia Studies64(8): 1505–1523.
44.
MitrovićM (2010) ‘New face of Serbia’ at the Eurovision Song Contest: International media spectacle and national identity. European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire17(2): 171–185.
45.
OrgazGBCajiasRCamachoD (2011, May) A study on the impact of crowd-based voting schemes in the ‘Eurovision’ European contest. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics. ACM, p.25.
46.
SaavedraSEfstathiouJReed-TsochasF (2007) Identifying the underlying structure and dynamic interactions in a voting network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications377(2): 672–688.
47.
SandvossC (2008) On the couch with Europe: The Eurovision Song Contest, the European Broadcast Union and belonging on the old continent. Popular Communication6(3): 190–207.
48.
SassatelliM (2002) Imagined Europe: The shaping of a European cultural identity through EU cultural policy. European Journal of Social Theory5(4): 435–451.
49.
SatterthwaiteMA (1975) Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory10: 187–217.
50.
SinghSPRoyJFournierP (2016) Polls, partisanship, and voter decision-making. In: BlaisALaslierJFVan der StraetenK (eds) Voting Experiments. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 171–189.
51.
SpierdijkLVellekoopM (2009) The structure of bias in peer voting systems: lessons from the Eurovision Song Contest. Empirical Economics36(2): 403–425.
52.
ŠtětkaV (2009) Media events and European visions: Czech Republic in the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest. Communications34(1): 21–38.
53.
TormeyS (2015) The End of Representative Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
54.
TragakiD (ed.) (2013) Empire of Song: Europe and nation in the Eurovision Song Contest. Plymouth: Scarecrow Press.
55.
VerrierDB (2012) Evidence for the influence of the mere-exposure effect on voting in the Eurovision Song Contest. Judgment and Decision Making7(5): 639–643.
YairG (1995) ‘Unite Unite Europe’ The political and cultural structures of Europe as reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest. Social Networks17(2): 147–161.
58.
YairGMamanD (1996) The Persistent structure of hegemony in the Eurovision Song Contest. Acta Sociologica39(3): 309–325.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
