This is a brilliant contest you have going on here, bro. And i'd usually be quiet, if i wasn't so darn impressed with what's going on here.
The reason i'm writing this, you see, is not just to give out a compliment, but to point out a flaw in your decision system, and all such that works in a similar fashion--that is, the post with maximun number of upvotes win.
While, ideally, this system would be the best possible system, in that it not only takes away the decision from a centralized privileged person or group of persons, but that it actually gives that privilege to the whole community.
In practice, however, IT is even more flawed than the centralized privileged judging system.
There are numerous reasons to support this, the most pertinent being that it is almost too easy to rig. All you have to do is go to your group on Telegram, WhatsApp, or Discord, and request for upvotes with promises to return the favor at a future date. Trust me, i'd know, I belong to at least two of such groups. Now in a group with over a hundred members, all you need is just a quarter of the total member to vote you and you're guaranteed a sure win.
Another reason is the fact that most people do have multiple accounts--some people have three. Myself included. Imagine having five of me upvote a shitty argument like the one you have up there.
Like I said, I would be quiet, but i really love your blog and appreciate what you have going on, so, I advice consider changing the decision system--you might consider choosing a panel of judges, maybe from past winners, trusted friends etc.
Transparency is good, but shouldn't come at the cost of an even more insidious evil.
P.S: You probably don't want to know, and it probably doesn't change anything, but I just want you to know I was pushed to the expedient of having more than one account.