Well, I can't say I'm incredibly surprised. They did report voting numbers over twice that of the Hugos, so I'd say that makes them at least twice as representative of fandom. Now if only they'd add some categories(I'll come back to that).
As to the winners, I have only a few of real complaints. Daniel Humphreys wrote a masterpiece, and the Doctorow books I've read say there's no way he could write something that compelling. It's a straight popularity contest, and Humphries only has two novels out so far. I get it. Swan Knight's Son is SOO GOOD, but again popularity contest, and JCW doesn't do any social media.
Now, to my big complaint: HOW ON EARTH DID THE SJW EXPANSION FOR BETRAYAL WIN? Well, I've got a couple of ideas here. As a new award, boardgamers don't care about it. In fact, I don't know that boardgamers will ever care about it as a relevant award, they care far more about reviews. Why? There's a LOT of noise in boardgames; you can find people that like anything, so you look for reviewers that like things you like. And yes, they influence the market, sometimes greatly. Hopefully, I'm starting to fill some of that niche for folks in books.
Now, as to what changes should be made?
Pull paranormal and urban out of the sff categories, possibly as a single category, maybe not. Add a best sff magazine/anthology category(it can split to two later; it's progress). Add a fan writer category, and maybe a cover category(this would be for all covers of eligible material). Avoid editor/publisher categories. For the tabletop categories, don't allow expansions in the main category, but perhaps make an expansion category(this would include CCG sets). And if somebody wants to pull their nomination, say no; it's not about them.
Overall, I'd say things still look pretty good for the Dragon Award. Here's hoping they learned from their mistakes this year, and will refine things for next.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.