I feel like this wouldn't avoid attempts at sabotage. Either Coalition might pick the least relevant member alliances of each Coalition to pick so that the prominent, outspoken 'enemy' alliances don't get the awards, even if they'd deserve them more. And then you'd also run into issues of who from each Coalition you'd pick to do the nominations and that'd just turn into an absolute mess.
I haven't read through the entire thread, just the first page or so, but I'm gonna throw in my two cents. I can see where everyone is coming from with their criticisms of both systems of awards, there is obviously no perfect solution so why can't we just let them coexist? Hope specifically pointed out that this whole other system was just for fun so that the community could be more involved with developing the actual awards rather than some random person just picking the categories. For me personally, I missed the period for nominations and voting in the official awards, which I was disappointed about, so I saw Hope's system as a fun chance to get involved in the awards and involved in the community. I don't think it's as politically undermining as people are trying to make it out to be. To my knowledge, the people organizing this never attempted to establish themselves as the official awards of the Orbis over the ones that were done in the forums. I think the system is fair - alliances can't nominate themselves and the nominations are done in private. This alleviates political pressure to nominate only your alliance or your coalition as a show of good faith to your allies and actually allows the nominations to be based on consideration and thoughtfulness. I think the Coalitions need to put down their hatred of one another for a hot sec and recognize awards for what they are supposed to be - a chance for the community to come together outside of the battlefield and appreciate all the crazy things we've done together over the past year. 🤷♀️