⭐ Merited by babo (1)
I think voting for anything is full of flaws, we can see that in political elections all the time.
Maybe we should have random pizza winners selected next time, after we first vote for worst pizza designs that should be eliminated
I kind of like some variation of this randomness idea.. but instead of eliminating the worst pizzas.. to allow for some counting (some weight) to the votes, so maybe the first stage would be to merely eliminate somewhere around half of the pizzas (or maybe 2/3rds or some other reasonable number?), so in this case half would be around 70 pizzas or 1/3 would be around 47 pizzas... .. So then maybe the second stage ends up with randomness or even picking out 10 pizzas.. so then the financial reward ends up getting spread out more.. Maybe we should have random pizza winners selected next time, after we first vote for worst pizza designs that should be eliminated
I don't know.. but I like the generation of randomness if there is no real meaningful way to sort out the voting collusion problem.
What of making the voting on the firsts stages to the discretion of a selected jury.. first stage for nominating qualifyed pizzas and second to jury voting to keem about 10 or 20 pizzas for exemple ! Then for the final stage open the voting to everybody ??
My reason for putting the randomness at the final voting stage was an attempt to lessen the impact of the colluding - and yeah my suggestion might not completely resolve it, just like your keeping voting in as the final stage still seems to leave advantage for colluding, and perhaps even would help the colluding to be on fewer pizzas, so less diluted if if ends up focusing on fewer pizzas.
I don't know.. but I like the generation of randomness if there is no real meaningful way to sort out the voting collusion problem.
Only if randomness can be proven, and I think we already have a nice tool for that made by member Bitmover:https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/
I am not surprised to see cheating in this competition, and I remember something similar happened with voting in discord.
Ah yes, the good old discord bitcointalk pizza day voting where some guy brought bunch of brand new Discord accounts to bitcointalk server (that have nothing to do with bitcointalk) just to vote for him, those votes were accepted and he shared the 1st prize. 
Current voting system in bitcointalk forum is better but we can see similar cheating behavior when money is involved.
Randomness and diluting the monetary incentive by having more winners.. that way the spirit of participation and even trying to make something that guys remember.. even though surely some might get badly motivated by money and status... so it may be difficult to create some potentially neutral ways of still allowing for winners..but to dilute and/or disincentivize cheating.. and it is not easy to identify some ways it could still work to inspire participating.. and 144 pizza submissions is not a bad thing.