Nine National Finals, One Scoreboard: Eurovision Asia's Results Are Mostly Being Kept Private

Nine Eurovision Asia national finals have now been broadcast. All nine used the same formula — a professional jury, a domestic public vote and a Rest of the World vote, weighted 40/40/20. All nine streamed free to the world.

Only one of them told viewers the score.

What each broadcaster published

That is one full scoreboard, six podiums and two bare winners. Across nine shows and 66 competing entries, points exist in public for five.

To be clear about what this is and isn’t: nobody has suggested any result is wrong, and no rule we are aware of obliges a broadcaster to publish a breakdown. Plenty of national finals in the European contest have been reticent too. This is an observation about transparency, not an accusation.

What the one scoreboard showed

Bhutan’s result is worth revisiting, because it is the only evidence the season has produced about how a 40/40/20 vote actually behaves.

Nyendra won Rhythm of Bhutan with 52 points. He did it without winning the public vote:

• The jury put Nyendra first.
• The Bhutanese public put Baeyul 301 first — and Nyendra second.
• The Rest of the World put Karma Drupchu first — and Nyendra third.

Three voting blocs, three different winners. Nyendra took the title by being the only act all three ranked highly. Baeyul 301, the home public’s favourite, finished third overall because the jury gave them almost nothing. The full table is on our Rhythm of Bhutan results page.

That is exactly the kind of result a scoreboard exists to reveal. Without it, the story would simply have been “Nyendra won.”

What we can’t know about the other eight

Every other final could have gone the same way, and there would be no way to tell.

Did Thailand’s public and its jury agree on Mang & Daou, or did one overrule the other? Was Beatmosphere’s a cappella entry a jury pick that the Bangladeshi public tolerated, or a public favourite that the jury tolerated? Did international voters back the same song of Tóc Tiên’s that Vietnamese viewers did? Was “Bae” a clear winner in Laos, or did it edge a three-way split? Was Pratik Himal Rai first with Nepal’s jury, with its public, or with both? Did Mongolia’s jury and public agree on “Light”?

In Thailand’s case even the podium is uncertain. The contest’s own report lists D Gerrard ahead of Gam Wichayanee; at least one specialist outlet reports them the other way round; the reference table on Wikipedia marks both simply as “top three.” A published scoreboard would settle it in a line.

Why this matters for predicting Bangkok

For a site that tries to estimate who will win, this is the single biggest gap in the evidence.

The Grand Final is half jury, half public. The most useful thing to know about any entry is which half likes it. An act that won its national final on a jury landslide is a different proposition in Bangkok from one carried by its home public — an audience that decides 40% of a national final but will be only one voice among many in the Grand Final.

The international vote is the closest thing to a preview. The Rest of the World bloc in each national final is likely to be made up of much the same people who will vote from outside the region in November. How those viewers ranked each winner against its domestic rivals would be the best available hint of cross-border appeal. Bhutan published that number. Nobody else has.

It leaves the market with nothing to price. A prediction market on the winner opened in September and has barely traded — when we last looked, on 14 October, its prices added up to 269%. There are several reasons for that, but one is simply that there is so little hard information to trade on.

It is why our own odds lean on structural factors — market size, how complete an entry is, how long it has to build an audience — rather than on how anyone performed in a vote. We would rather use results. For eight of nine finals, they aren’t available.

A caveat on the “40/40/20” itself

One more thing the season has taught us: descriptions of the voting were unreliable before the shows aired.

Bangladesh’s, Vietnam’s and Nepal’s systems were all described in advance as 50/50 between jury and public — in reports before the shows, ours included. All three turned out to be 40/40/20; in Nepal’s case the contest set the record straight the day before the show. Cambodia’s 17 October final is currently being described as 50/50.

The likely explanation is innocent: “half jury, half public” is a fair shorthand for a system in which the public half is split between domestic and international voters. But it means a published split and a published result are two different levels of openness. This season has mostly managed the first.

One chance left

Nepal on 7 October and Mongolia on 10 October both stopped at a podium. Nepal named Pratik Himal Rai, Allam Aadesh and Bullet Flo x Preeti Kaur; Mongolia put “Light” ahead of “Chamguigeer (Without You)” and “One of a Kind”. Neither published a number.

That leaves Cambodia on 17 October as the last chance this season to do what Bhutan did.

It would cost a broadcaster nothing, and it would give fans, journalists and the artists themselves a far better idea of where each entry stands going into Bangkok. We will record what each one publishes on our national selections page and in the results — exactly as much as they release, and no more.

Published 7 October 2026, updated that evening to add Nepal Decides and on 14 October to add Mongolia’s Chosen One. Counts are based on the results as reported by the contest’s official channels, Eurovoix, Aussievision and the relevant Wikipedia articles as of those dates.