Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 403–425 | Cite as

The structure of bias in peer voting systems: lessons from the Eurovision Song Contest

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper assesses whether and how common characteristics of jury members or peer voters affect the outcomes of voting systems. In particular, we analyze to what extent these common features result in voting bias. We take as a case study the Eurovision Song Contest for which an extensive amount of historical data is available. In contrast to earlier studies we analyze the impact of common factors on the bias individually for each country, which is necessary to substantiate the publicly debated accusations of regional block voting by certain groups of countries. We establish strong evidence for voting bias in the song contest on the basis of geography, even after correction for culture, language, religion and ethnicity. However, these effects do generally not correspond to the usual accusations. We believe that our findings extend to all instances where groups of jury members or peer voters share certain common factors, which may cause voting bias. It is important to identify such structures explicitly, as it can help avoiding bias in the first place.

Keywords

Voting systems Peer voting Expert judgement Eurovision Song Contest 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Bruinen de Bruin W (2005) Save the last dance for me: unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychol 118: 245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell B, Galbraith JW (1996) Nonparametric tests of the unbiasedness of Olympic figure-skating judgments. Statistician 45: 521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doosje B, Haslam SA (2005) What have they done for us lately? The dynamics of reciprocity in intergroup contexts. J Appl Soc Psychol 35: 508–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyen I, Kruskal J, Black P (1992) An Indo-European classification: a lexicostatistical experiment. Trans Am Philos Soc 82: 1–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fenn D, Suleman O, Efstathiou J, Johnson NF (2006) How does Europe make its mind up? Connections, cliques and compatibility between countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. Phys A 360: 576–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flôres RG, Ginsburgh VA (1996) The Queen Elizabeth competition: how fair is the final ranking?. J R Stat Soc Ser D, Stat 45: 97–104Google Scholar
  7. Gatherer D (2006) Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest simulation with actual results reveals shifting patterns of collusive voting alliances. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9Google Scholar
  8. Gatherer D (2004) Birth of a meme: the origin and evolution of collusive voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest. J Memetics Evol Models Inf Transm 8Google Scholar
  9. Ginsburgh V, Noury A (2006) The Eurovision Song Contest: is voting political or cultural? (Working Paper)Google Scholar
  10. Ginsburgh VA, Van Ours JC (2003) Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition. Am Econ Rev 93: 289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haan MA, Dijkstra G, Dijkstra PT (2005) Expert judgement versus public opinion—evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest. J Cult Econ 29: 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstede G (1996) Cultures and organizations. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Iannaccone LR (1998) Introduction to the economics of religion. J Econ Lit 36: 1465–1496Google Scholar
  15. Iannaccone LR (1995) Voodoo economics? Reviewing the rational choice approach to religion. J Sci Study Relig 34: 76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuran T (1994) Religious economics and the economics of religion. J Inst Theor Econ 150: 769–775Google Scholar
  17. Link AM (1998) US and non-US submissions. J Am Med Assoc 280: 246–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Popovic R (2000) International bias detected in judging rhythmic gymnastics competition at Sydney-2000 Olympic Games. Phys Educ Sport 11: 1–3Google Scholar
  19. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. J Am Med Assoc 295: 1675–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turkey in Europe:More than a promise? (2004) Publication of the Independent Commission on Turkey. http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/english.pdf
  21. White H (1980) Heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yaffee RA (2003) A Primer for panel data analysis. Working Paper, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Yair G (1995) Unite Unite Europe. The political and cultural structures of Europe as reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest. Soc Netwrks 17: 147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yair G, Maman D (1996) The persistent structure of hegemony in the Eurovision Song Contest. Acta Sociol 39: 309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zitzewitz E (2006) Nationalism in winter sports judging and its lessons for organizational decision making. J Econ Manage Strategy 15: 67–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Econometrics, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Financial Engineering Laboratory and the Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations