It's been pointed out how a small number of ballots in the current scheme can cause wide variance in the final outcomes of the competition. Elsewhere, I've encountered a system that MAY have the happy side effect of reducing the chances of that happening. Currently, the ballot requires a straight ranking: I like Zendo better than Ice Towers better than Martian Backgammon better than Spicklehead. It doesn't take into account that a particular voter may feel that Zendo is only marginally better in his opinion than Ice Towers, but both are WAY COOL, and that Spicklehead is WAY below Martian Backgammon. His vote is completely countered by someone who feels "Eh" about all four games, and rates them Spicklehead, Martian Backgammon, Ice Towers, Zendo. The system I encountered says "You have x points. Allocate them as you see fit among the choices." X is a function of how many choices there are on the ballot - the particular example I encountered said "two points per choice on the ballot". Suppose the IGDC says 'ten points per choice on the ballot'. In the example above, each voter can share 40 points among the four choices. So, the first voter goes with Z=20, I=12, M=6, S=2. The second voter goes with S=12, M=11, I=9, Z=8. The two votes no longer counter each other; the strong feelings of the first voter "weigh more heavily" than the generally neutral feelings of the second. Does this have possibilities?