Sean and Kelly,
I certainly understand that there could be an appearance of impropriety, and even impropriety itself, but could argue whether anyone really gets hurt, which is why its just not that big a deal in this type of matter.
Let's say I rate one of my own courses way to high to boost it up in the rankings. Raters go play it (or average golfers go play it) and don't like it. I think they then rate it lower because of their perceptions than they might have otherwise, and/or vote with their wallets and don't play anymore. The truth comes out one way or another and for every round a rating might give, it can take away at least one, right? Life has a way of balancing out, and I don't think your respective opinions consider that as highly as they might.
I just don't see any real "danger" unless you think all golfers are like lambs getting led to slaughter! The rankings are advertised as the collective opniion of 100 so called experts in golf and that is exactly what they are. Would they be better if the courses were ranked by a bunch of blind chimpanzees who never play golf? Wait, don't answer that........
As to whether you belong here, I say you do. Why is it that you are comfortable in the presence of Tom Doak, the original "architect in judge of other architects" (well at least in this generation) who formed a panel of one, but draw the line with all others sitting on panels as 1% contributors to the consensus opinion? If you feel like gca's shouldn't try to influence others opinions in public, well, you should have been gone in protest long ago, no?
BTW, you will notice that in these discussions I have made no mention of my own dozen plus courses on that Texas list, precisely because it seems unseemly to promte my own work here. You can be sure that I disagree with the overall rankings of some, and that I had one drop off the public list completely after a high ranking in the last few years, for reasons I don't know. But, no one here cares about that or makes a big deal, and I just accept the rankings are what they are.
In the national rankings I feel I have been "wronged" a few times, too. While Kansas State, for example, ranks in most mags as the top public in KS, I recall being out there during grow in and meeting some panelists with connections to existing highly ranked courses telling me that the group of them was going to vote KSU very, very low to hurt its chances. Apparently, they did (although I can't know for sure) because it wasn't on the final Best New lists anywhere. I had another two with the points to make the list that were dropped for different reasons. But, I am also sure that every gca can tell similar stories of courses that "should have made the top or Best New list...."
I live to tell the tale, and I am sure Tom Doak's esteemed reputation will not suffer one iota from this little miscue by the DMN. I know that because no gca has all winners and top ranked courses in their portfolio, and it hasn't affected their reputations either.
In short, these are just some real world examples of how not getting the "right" ranking (whatever that is) doesn't really pose any danger to the gca's, and in reality, doesn't really hurt golf courses (although that one is hard to prove without summoning everyones financial records, etc.) IMHO, if there is no practical effect, then there really isn't any theoretical effect either, at least when it comes to something as benign as golf course rankings by a local newspaper.
so, IMHO, you should obsess a little less and then stick around and continue to contribute to the discussions! But, that's just my opinon (which by the way, is certainly NOT more important than yours!)
Cheers.