This week saw the release of the Budget. Last year I took
the time to analyse the main areas of spending and the demographics they played
to. As it turned out it was quite difficult to break down the ABS data to a
manageable level that informed our predictions. It was an interesting exercise,
but no points could be awarded for correct predictions – much like a
demonstration match at the Olympics.
This year, however, there is something else to look at. This
weekend we will find the results of the International voting in an election run
across the length and breadth of the European Union. International politics
will come to the fore. Diplomatic ties will be strained and strengthened.
Smoke, wind and fire pour forth from the floor.
I speak, of course, of the Eurovision Song Contest.
It is no secret, of course, that the voting in Eurovision is
at times more political than a reflection on musical talent. The Nordic/Scandinavian
countries will back each other to the hilt.* Turkey and Armenia will strive to
put the past behind them once more.** Ukraine and Russia will go head-to-head
on an illuminated screen floor concealed beneath dry ice and loaded with enough
pyrotechnics to blow up the British Houses of Parliament.***
This year, however, Australia has sent Jessica Mauboy to
perform. Technically Australia’s not in Europe (although similar geographic
inconveniences has never stopped Israel participating). Instead, we were just
be appearing as an act in the second semi during voting for the real
contestants. It was an interesting exercise, but no points were awarded for the
performance – much like a demonstration match at the Olympics.
The semi-finals are over, however a brief analysis of past
semi-finals results may have informed our expectations. Certain countries are
well known to favour each other – this may be due to political reasons,
geographical closeness fostering a familiarity and friendliness to other
nations or songs being sung in common languages (e.g. the Most Serene Republic
of San Marino might sing in Italian, which might isolate non-Italian dominated
countries a little but appeal to the Italian vote). This was a bigger rort back
when the winner was picked by a small jury of representatives. In 1998 the
phone voting system was introduced, but because unpredictability and lack of
bias are boring we are now on a hybrid system.
Most importantly, it is not possible to vote against a
country. This means that nations can afford to narrow in on the support of a
few select nations without a significant backlash from others. This also means
that there are situations, for example in the current Crimean Crisis, where the
results are counter intuitive. Pro-EU (aka anti-Russian) forces outnumber
pro-Russian (aka anti-European Union) protestors in Ukraine. As a result, one
would expect the Russians to do poorly off of the Ukrainian vote. However since
the anti-Russian vote will be split across so many other options, the
consolidated Russian support might mean top marks for the former super-power. A
pox upon first-past-the-post voting systems.
Semi Finals
First off, here are the total points awarded to the
countries on the y-axis by those on the x-axis since 2008 when the semi-finals
were first split into two pools.
And here is the average score since 2008, adjusted for the
times each country has not participated.
Given that only half of the x-y combinations will match up
each year (countries in pool 1 cannot vote for those in pool 2), and the
average pool size is around 18 participants, an average score would be roughly
1.6 (the actual average of all scores is roughly 1.484). The standard deviation
is higher than this (1.643) and therefore does not offer a convenient way of
grading favouritism. Instead, let’s graph each nation’s support for each
contestant to determine if there is a particularly strong peak of support
anywhere.
Okay. Let’s not, then. Instead, 1.0 and less is arbitrarily
considered poor, up to 2.0 is fair, up to 4.0 is a lean towards a nation and
anything above 4.0 is a very strong lean. And, go:
Slightly better, I suppose. While the obvious approach is to
simply see which 10 teams do best from each voter in the same pool as a
prediction, the green votes above are the key ones that we can rely on. Whether
you see this as the historical strength of each nation’s musical ability or
other factors, certain patterns emerge. Greece is historically very strong with
green ratings from 13 different countries and favours the smaller nations in the
Balkan/Eastern European sphere. Russia does well off of the Baltics and other
peaceful neighbours (Poland, Azerbaijan, Lithuania and Latvia blue, Estonia green)
but poorly from the major powers (red from France and Portugal, grey from UK,
Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden & Norway) and neighbouring nations fearing a
military invasion (Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus all red).
So, lets take a look at, on past voting, who can be expected
to do best in each pool:
 |
| Where countries have drawn, the availible points are averaged. These are rounded off to the nearest whole number above. |
Comparing the rankings (total score) with the actual results
(red countries in the grids were eliminated) It is clear that there is no real
predictive power in this methodology. In fact, the bottom three and top four in
each pool went straight through, leaving the battle to the middle of the field.
Instead, I’m going to have to pick the songs manually.
Countries can get support for being genuinely good (see Norway) or, more
commonly, for ridiculous costumes (see Iceland), special effects (see
Montenegro) or bizarre songs (see Estonia). You can also get into the finals
for being Scandinavian or, in a tiebreak situation Baltic/Balkan.
For Pool 1, I predicted the ten to continue to the finals as
Armenia (the only pyrotechnic-dependant performance), Latvia (splitting the
Hipster vote with the Netherlands and scooping up the often overlooked cake-baking
vote), Sweden (Scandinavian vote), Iceland (slightly less lucrative Nordic vote,
reinforced by technicolour costumes), Russia (for using singing twins and a guy
whose only roll is to stand behind a collapsible sunrise), Ukraine (giant
freaking hamster wheel), San Marino (impressive use of video screens with dry
ice), Portugal (all the drums, and a half-naked black guy), the Netherlands
(reaping more than half of the votes of hipsters dominating the west of Europe)
and Montenegro (impressive figure-skater/effects coordination).
With 16 contenders I was guaranteed at least 4 of my 10
would get through, so the possible scores for this prediction range from 0 to 6
guesses inaccurate. Latvia and Portugal dropped out for Azerbaijan and Hungary,
so that’s 8 out of 10 correct, but should honestly be a score of 4/6 or 66%.
For Pool 2, my pick was Malta (hipsters with the obligatory acoustic
guitars, double bass and drums (plus a piano and a… a… I don’t even know what)),
Norway (perhaps the best act on actual musical ability), Poland (for
traditional dress and sensual – even erotic – clothes washing), Austria (for
supporting a bearded transvestite), Lithuania (for the Tron-inspired outfits),
Belarus (for Mo-town junior), Switzerland (whistling hipsters with obligatory acoustic
guitar, double bass and drums (and banjo and tambourine)), Greece (a
rap/R&B/dance number appealing to a completely separate demographic, backed
up by a trampolinist), Romania (Mohawk and fake circular piano) and one other.
The choices for the last place are varied, with different attributes to pick
from: there’s Ireland with a Bollywood/Riverdance combo; Slovenia with an
interesting flute opening; and there’s the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
with Voldemort in a white hoodie.
With 31 contestants between the two semis we actually earn
one tossup, which I would probably use here if the results were not already
known. Instead, I’m going with Georgia due to their electric guitar wielding
mobster and a guy with a parachute.
15 contestants means 5 of my 10 predictions are guaranteed to
be correct. Georgia was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Lithuania also failed to
capitalise, and Slovenia and Finland (Damn you Nordic bloc vote) replaced them.
So, 80% again on total results, but 3 out of 5 (60%) once adjusted for
mathematical certainties.
With that less-than-impressive background, we need to look
at the automatic finalists:
UK: Britain seems to think Eurovision is a song contest of
some sort. Nothing too zany to report on here.
Spain: Based on the preview movie clip, there may actually
be rain falling on the stage for this one.
Germany: Accordion, Double Bass and Mime artists – I’m a
little concerned France and Germany may have switched acts.
France: Big hair and a burning desire to grow a moustache –
I’m very concerned France and Germany may have switched acts.
Italy: Futuristic Punk. ‘nuf said.
Denmark: Seems to be competing as Belarus’ older brother.
With the exception of 2010, an auto-finalist has not won
since 1997. In that time, the Nordics have won six times. If you want to pick a
shortlist of winners, the Big Five and the Host is not the set to pick. That’s not
to say they cannot win, but I suspect given the cost of hosting the contest,
none of them want to become regular giants of the contest (compare Ireland in
the 90’s).
And that brings us to:
The Finals
A lot of gimmicks that got countries through the semis –
circular pianos and Wiggles-inspired suits – will lose their appeal the second
time around. I think the strongest contestants from pool 1 are Russia, Ukraine
and the Netherlands. For pool 2 I’d back Norway, Switzerland and, at an outside
chance, Poland or Austria. The first-time performers are not hamstrung by this
seen-it-all-before fatigue (except perhaps Denmark), so France may get a boost
there too.
To pick one, I’d have to tentatively circle Ukraine, with Norway
a close second and the Dutch in third. The Netherlands will overshadow the
Swiss for the hipster vote, and I think Russia and Poland will appeal to similar
voters, splitting the votes. Austria may come from nowhere, but I doubt it.
Since I am operating with completely untried (or,
realistically, no) predictive methods, these predictions will not be counted
towards the total points of this blog. I should, perhaps, have done the same
thing with last year’s conclave and the United Nations Security Council vote
the year before that (although the UNSC results have not been factored into the
current score at Infographinomicon).
It is an interesting exercise, but no points will be awarded for correct
predictions – much like a demonstration match at the Olympics.
* Although exactly where
these boundaries are drawn is open to debate. With Denmark into the finals by
default, this does not necessarily result in predictable preference flows.
** Although Turkey has chickened out this year.
*** Calculation not performed. However, the gunpowder to be
used by Guy Fawkes et al amounted toa cubic ton.
Measuring gunpowder by volume is complicated by grain size, but will generally
resolve to the equivalent weight within 10% accuracy. So allowing 1.1 ton
(roughly 998,000 g) of gunpowder to blow up parliament seems like a pretty good
benchmark. If you know where to buy blackpowder substitutes
(that link may land you on certain government watchlists) you can get the stuff
for less than $20/pound ($18.29 plus shipping, limit 48 lb), or go full-on V
for Vendetta for just over $40,000. Granted the cost of fireworks will cost
more for labour, colours etc. and can vary hugely with the choice of
pyrotechnic, and because these are payed for by the performing countries, exact
expenditure is difficult to track down. But even if the fireworks are 10%
gunpowder by cost, that’s $400,000 spread between 37 countries. Given
that most contestants give their performance at least twice, that’s only $5000 per
act on fireworks. Add in the opening ceremony etc. etc. etc. and Big Ben
doesn’t really stand a chance.
