Why not judged by a single person instead of a community? It makes more sense this way, it feels more like a marketing competition than actually making a good game. I agree that Superbolt is winning just from the front image, but Lonely Bridge, that is just a runner with horrible design and polish and is higher than my Platformer game, Conviently Placed Exploding Barrels, that followed a more Sonicy design with great polish and semi-good graphics, I liked Sonic's difficulty, but someone disliked this because they didn't even read. This is why there needs to be one or a group of judges.

A select group of people or a person or two are not going to be able to play 500+ games. This is generally how it works on itch.io and it works well. It doesn't really matter how many ratings a game gets and you don't know what the results are until they are released. i.e. a game with 15 ratings could come up ahead of a game with 100 ratings.  I think that if you continue in this vain of being openly critical of other games, all you are going to do is invite criticism of your game and that is going to ruin your jam experience. The rating system is not perfect, but generally, the games that come out on top are usually very very good, so the community as a whole tends to get it right. 

This voting system was established as a rule before the jam even started. And it is the same each year with Game OFF. So if you want something else you can entry in another jam. Game OFF is about open source code and participative culture. If you are against that, then you should look somewhere else.