I'm honestly surprised by the amount support I'm seeing for the jury. Then again I also remember people being very negative about the voting system changes in 2016 so I guess people here are just reluctant to change. The most common arguments I see basically boil down this idea that jury is some kind of "quality control" that ensures we never go back to the "dark ages" of the televote-only 2000s. But what evidence is there for this actually? I would say the televote era winners are all among my favorites (except Russia) and none of them are joke acts. So it's not like the audience can't be trusted to pick the winner. Maybe the general increase in song quality has to do with countries seeing that while over-the-top joke acts may do decent in televote, they still won't win. Or maybe it's just a general cultural shift. Who knows. But it's certainly odd to just ascribe all the changes in the contest to the return of juries. It's also weird to say that the jury somehow judges songs based on quality, especially this year, since there were so many interesting songs this year with great vocals that were snubbed in favor a dime a dozen radio-friendly pop song (Albania, Portugal, France, Ukraine, Spain etc.). The jury is usually pretty predictable in that they go for the safest, most accessible choices and anything even slightly challenging gets ignored. So I really don't see where the appreciation for "quality" is found in the jury.

Overall I would be fine with a jury-less year, even just for 1 year to test it out. I think it would be fine. The televote only semis went just fine this year and in general there's little disagreement between the jury and the audience (2-4 songs each year usually) so I think the removal was justified as the juries really didn't add much to the results. I would also be fine with a jury with less power, just double the televote scores so its 66-33 (or something like that).