Hi. I feel like the scores aren't really representative, mainly since I feel like many people use different scales, and of course many more things. I found some strange scores I'd like to point out:

• Only Man and the Sea got 2.912 in originality, while it was one of the most original games I've seen, taking a classical book, and getting gameplay from it. The gameplay isn't mind-blowing but it is still an amazing game, and is beautiful.
• My game: Twisty Chess got about 3.2 both in originality and design, and while you could say a lot of bad things about it, objectively it shouldn't get 3.2 in originality. If you have a reason why, explain to me in the topic.
• Chess but Less got only 3.914 in design, despite having amazing puzzles.
• Quatro got about 3.7 in originality, despite being, though not very un-obvious, a unique game.

And a lot more.

I have no idea how you could fix the voting system, but it is really, really skewed. 

It is kinda expected that votes are going to be unfair unfortunately. There are so many games to vote, but only very few games will get more than 100 reviews.

In a perfect world everyone would have the exact same reviewing standard (and everyone would have time to play all games). In reality the standards and the interpretations of the votes will widely differ from person to person.

You can be unlucky and only get reviewers with high standards, while someone else is more lucky and only get reviewers with low standards.

Not sure if that's the case with these games though. 

I don't see anything unusual here. Different people have different tastes. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're wrong. One thing I did notice though, is that Chess but Less got way less ratings than Only Man and the Sea, and placed way way higher. It looks like the more people rate your game, the more they can disagree with one another. That might be why you think the scores aren't representative, because there were more people with different opinions to lower the game's rating.

this is a curious case of fellow devs giving bad ratting so that you can't excel past them and in the comments section add nice..gibberish ..repetitive words to make you feel good and oblige to rate there game graciously. 

This cut-throat mechanism in game rating by game devs has its own problem and is excepted to go this way ...don't feel bad.. 

I've  given your game good ratings.. and didn't expected it  go down this far...Anyway, Nobody can tell you whether your game suck or not..  game devs have to make sure players have good experience with there game ... its you who have to put your game among gamers  (not game dev..especially in jam where they are the ones going to rate..)... am sure it will find its own niche..