Peter,
I tend to think gca's shouldn't be the course raters in most cases, not that it is so critical that we should revolt when it happens.
I had the opportunity to be on the Dallas Morning News panels, and did it for a while, but declined most years. That said, if the gca is is conflicted trying to rank his course, the pro, the owner, etc. all have the same conflict of interest. Having the widest range of panelists helps take the bias out, and even then, editors of the lists tend to take out the highest and lowest score of a course before averaging, figuring that an extreme ranking/rating has a background story.
If an architect has a strong set of design ideas (i.e., CBM and his template holes, or other philosophies) it is hard not to judge any golf hole in terms of how I would have done it differently, unless it is really, really superb, i.e., Sand Hills. Of course, the gca nerds who tend to sign up for golf panels might have the same problem, and as someone noted, there has always been a trend towards panelists voting higher for architects they like over the course itself. Or, voting higher for a course with an aesthetic they liked.
I understand this is a bit of a straw man argument in and of itself, but what rating would a carbon copy of Sand Hills, in another setting, and with bunkers styled like Augusta instead get around here? The strategy would be the same, but the rating would go way down for the aesthetic.
In the end, I have just talked myself out of further participation in what will just degenerate into another ratings discussion that I hate, in part, thanks to me, LOL.