I'm not convinced that having the players vote on the CMoA is a bad thing.
The problem is supposed to be that the players are always going to vote up another's performance? How is that different from other forms of cheating? Would you say a game is flawed because it doesn't require the GM to watch every roll made with hawk-eyes for fear of a player cheating? That sounds like you consider the game a competition when in reality, the GM can make it as difficult or easy as the mood strikes him.
There's another game that practices the basic mechanic in a more extreme way: Wraith. In the game, every character has a dark, self-destructive side that basically urges them to give up and let Oblivion devour them. Since that technically means the GM has 5 extra NPCs to manage that never seperate from the group and have something to say on almost every situation, the game advocated simply handing every character's Shadow to another player. Considering the Shadow is often the second-most important and dangerous adversary, usually standing behind only the Big Bad of a campaign, the potential for abuse is obvious. Still, the standard for playing the game is to use just that method and at least in our group, it worked out wonderfully, with the Shadow Guides barely holding back more than the GM would.
Ceterum Censeo Dezmond Ignorandum Esse.
I'm not convinced that having the players vote on the CMoA is a bad thing. [snip]
Good example. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's a good thing. Hence it's not something that is going to make it across the system conversion barrier. As with others, though, I'm grateful for the insight into the system and will look forward to when we get some more.