Anonimous member voting = unbiased voting. Seems like the most viable way to me.

--
_{^{truth be told,
I'd rather be sold
than juggle stepping stones.}}

I voiced a preference for members voting anonymously.
However, I am not opposed to member or staff for that matter voting publicly providing that one should not vote on their own work.

--
People are Important - Goals much less
When we stop learning we have begun to die - Shamelessly Purloined

Chirp, it's been twittered. [link]

--
Hear lit tweet here

Obviously whomever is judging shouldn't see the names of the writers (so, anonymous), but it would be MUCH better to have staff (my vote) or a panel vote rather than the collective membership.

I've pretty much stopped entering PP contests because member voting ensures that derivative, crappy poems typically win the contests, which is to the detriment of the group's reputation as well as to the other entrants and even the winner, who gets an inflated view of his or her own work.

This isn't always the case, but I am typically appalled at the winning entry's lack of poetic talent/skill. The voting should be done by a committee of skilled people (either staff or a panel from outside the club, or inside the club but not participating in the contest), so that hopefully quality poems will be chosen to win the contests.

--
Everywhere I go I'm asked if the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher. --Flannery O'Connor