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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bruinen de Bruin W (2005) Save the last dance for me: unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychol 118: 245–260
Campbell B, Galbraith JW (1996) Nonparametric tests of the unbiasedness of Olympic figure-skating judgments. Statistician 45: 521–526
Doosje B, Haslam SA (2005) What have they done for us lately? The dynamics of reciprocity in intergroup contexts. J Appl Soc Psychol 35: 508–535
Dyen I, Kruskal J, Black P (1992) An Indo-European classification: a lexicostatistical experiment. Trans Am Philos Soc 82: 1–132
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: 576–598
Flôres RG, Ginsburgh VA (1996) The Queen Elizabeth competition: how fair is the final ranking?. J R Stat Soc Ser D, Stat 45: 97–104
Gatherer D (2006) Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest simulation with actual results reveals shifting patterns of collusive voting alliances. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9
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 8
Ginsburgh V, Noury A (2006) The Eurovision Song Contest: is voting political or cultural? (Working Paper)
Ginsburgh VA, Van Ours JC (2003) Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition. Am Econ Rev 93: 289–296
Haan MA, Dijkstra G, Dijkstra PT (2005) Expert judgement versus public opinion—evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest. J Cult Econ 29: 59–78
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences. Sage, Beverly Hills
Hofstede G (1996) Cultures and organizations. McGraw-Hill, London
Iannaccone LR (1998) Introduction to the economics of religion. J Econ Lit 36: 1465–1496
Iannaccone LR (1995) Voodoo economics? Reviewing the rational choice approach to religion. J Sci Study Relig 34: 76–88
Kuran T (1994) Religious economics and the economics of religion. J Inst Theor Econ 150: 769–775
Link AM (1998) US and non-US submissions. J Am Med Assoc 280: 246–247
Popovic R (2000) International bias detected in judging rhythmic gymnastics competition at Sydney-2000 Olympic Games. Phys Educ Sport 11: 1–3
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: 1675–1680
Turkey in Europe:More than a promise? (2004) Publication of the Independent Commission on Turkey. http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/english.pdf
White H (1980) Heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817–838
Yaffee RA (2003) A Primer for panel data analysis. Working Paper, New York University
Yair G (1995) Unite Unite Europe. The political and cultural structures of Europe as reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest. Soc Netwrks 17: 147–161
Yair G, Maman D (1996) The persistent structure of hegemony in the Eurovision Song Contest. Acta Sociol 39: 309–325
Zitzewitz E (2006) Nationalism in winter sports judging and its lessons for organizational decision making. J Econ Manage Strategy 15: 67–99
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors are grateful to Marieke van Dijk for excellent research assistance and to Laurens Swinkels, Ieva Pudane, Gijsbert van Lomwel, Jelena Stefanovic, and Bas van den Heuvel for useful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Spierdijk, L., Vellekoop, M. The structure of bias in peer voting systems: lessons from the Eurovision Song Contest. Empir Econ 36, 403–425 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-008-0202-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-008-0202-5