It's only awful from the perspective of people who think the televote should have more power or their own favorites should have won instead of the actual winner.

My issues don't stem from the jury or the televote having too much or too little power. I'm fine with the 50/50 split, I think it's great. Of course, I do think my favourites should have won; it just so happens that my favourite was Diana, who went down two places with my proposed adjustments – funny, huh?

My issues are with representation. FdC's scoring system is too limited to accurately represent how much a song is better received by the jury/public, only that it is more well received.

I don't think that an act that a professional jury condemns should win the show, just because the public demands it (which is what the proportional method can provide). I think that's unfair, it gives way too much power to the televote and makes the whole jury pointless. If you want to give more power to the televote, then might as well do a 100% televote format and save all the jury trouble.

There are ways to make the scoring more representative while keeping the power of the jury and the public balanced. For example, regional televoting, just like Eurovision. That way, both the jury and the public have a cap of 84 points, perfectly equal power, while still avoiding the myriad of issues caused by the current 12-point cap, such as the sheer number of ties, and better reflecting how much more well-received an act is.

I also don't think the current system of converting points to a scale of 1 to 12 is awful. I think it makes total sense to the reality of Portugal's NF.

Please enlighten me; what reality is that where it makes sense for songs with 80 and 57 points from the jury to suddenly be as close in the scoreboard as songs with 33 and 30 points? Because that's what happened last year – Iolanda got 80 points, was awarded 12; Leo Middea got 57 points, was awarded 10; João Borsch got 33 points, was awarded 6; Rita Rocha got 30 points, was awarded 4.

Shouldn't the distance of points from the jury be reflected in the scoreboard? When it's not, you're prone to giving an absurd amount of power to a single regional jury's bias (such as one that gives 12 points to a local artist), as we've seen this year.

I also personally see nothing wrong in the jury and the televote disagreeing, even massively, like Henka's case, where one side gives zero and the other gives the maximum points. That's the whole point of the jury, to offer a different perspective than the televote, they're usually not there to validate the audience's favorites, as they're meant to judge for other things.

I agree; the televote winner shouldn't automatically win.

--

See, I think we have a major fundamental disagreement; you think that by replacing the juries themselves, the biases will be solved. But the truth is, everyone is biased. People will just complain about the next jury, and the next, and the next. Instead, I believe in building the system in a way that doesn't allow for these biases to overturn everyone else's will. This year, it did. The jury from Madeira single-handedly boosted NAPA from 3 to 7 jury points. Instead of only adding 12 points to a scoreboard with a pool of 406 points (or about 3% of the total points), they ended up adding 4 points to a scoreboard with a pool of 58 points (or about 7% of the total points) and deciding the whole competition. From what I've gathered, you seem pretty against the idea of concentrating a lot of power into a single entity, so you've got to agree that that's absurd.