Presuming I read the rules for the showdown correctly, and that everyone who participates should be submitting feedback for the game indicated for that date (evidence to the contrary)... here is my review for Grass is Greener...

I like some of the witty aspects, and the mechanics fit the challenge. I think some of the description was not clear enough around items like using the timers.

There is a key problem in that it looks to be trying to be two types of games at the same time. I'm not sure they are compatible at the level presented. Basically mid-game fighting/voting/pitching is trumped by end game social voting. I think this would lead to frustrated players.

Separated out, the idea of selecting roles and having 40 hours to allocated them to is pretty cool. Voting for the role you want could work. Hashing out the rest isn't bad, but you quickly back into dog pile on leader and king-making for a regular game.

To maximize the game as presented, I would emphasize the design around creating these outrageous character situations and then allow for secret bet tokens; so a person can score from their builds or from backing/helping build the top pick. Somewhere in there you can get to a game where the process of selecting traits is focused on comic effect for all.

This was my #2 vote.

When I first read this game, I had two concerns. First, I wasn't sure if it fit the spirit of the contest, which I took to have a theme integrated into a voting mechanic -- in particular, that the players play the roles of voting agents within the theme. But I can't complain that you interpreted it differently.

My other concern was that this was just another spin on "Cards Against Humanity." But then I saw it as more of a storytelling game and it started to sound very interesting. You get the crazy party game feel, but there is an evolution of the story from round to round as well. That could set it apart from other party games. It's going to depend a lot on the cards and the crowd, of course, but this could be a lot of fun.

Thank you, billarama,
I appreciate the great feedback and positive response. My first pass at this ended up being a tight set of rules. That got a functional thumbs down from my wife, in rewriting to clarify the game feel in under 500 I lost some of the detail.

The conversions concept is that in the middle with the common gods, there are neutral meeples that can be converted to player meeples. I have the meeple range from six to twelve max. I'm seeing the meeples as more of an income than action placement, which should allow me to balance costs out so, that maybe converting costs three active meeples to do.

With the player board card slots, I'm seeing viable strategies in having one facedown god and four face up, or even five facedown. I want the victory point bonus to facedown gods to be strong enough that it is an interesting decision whether to use their power. Also, this may mask the rich get richer by hiding the victory point status.

I need to give some thought to affinities enabling powers, as that is an angle I hadn't quite designed for, but could make it really interesting.

Oddly this is a theme I've wanted to get get my teeth into for a while. But I'd been focusd on the idea of religions as a survival of the fittest set of memes. Sometime in the last year, I read a fantasy novel with gods in a medieval setting that had narrow interests and very small numbers of followers. This challenge made the dots connect in my head.

This is going to be a slow side project of building out the gods and trying to balance everything. If this tests out to play fast I may be able to go looser with balance.

Sorry I couldnt space these out as per the schedule but here are my thoughts on each game:

Little Gods
I like the overall theme, but the mechanics seemed confusing. This could be a function of just needing to play it once to clear up but I didn’t vote for it this time because I felt there were too many mechanics in operation between new gods, old gods, powers, affinities, neutral tribes, etc. I think if the author had more than 500 words to work with this could be a pretty entertaining game though.

Kingmaker
I really liked this game. I didn’t give it top marks solely because it was an American election themed game, albeit with a spin. I enjoyed the themes that took the election idea and brought it to another level outside of US elections. Plus that was one of the criteria. I think if they had just stuck with Xenia and left out the word ‘Ohio’, it would have even been enough to consider then, but still wouldn’t have received my top vote as it’s too close to actual elections.

Grass is Greener
This received a vote from me. I thought it has some great potential for humorous cards and high replayability potential a la cards against humanity.

Mine
This one was my favorite. I really like resource games and have been bouncing a similar idea in my head around for a while. I think the author did a great job using contracts, trade, and building in a unified manner and I liked the way they used the voting mechanic.

Viking Race
This one was mine and was a last minute addition. I sent a copy to my brother and he had some great feedback for me (alas, that he emailed back too late), including that the second phase pretty much involves no choice, and is essentially just acting out the results of the first phase. He gave me some tips for altering it a little bit but I was not surprised by the last place finish 

Its All About Trust
Again, I didn’t like that this was an actual election for an actual Parliament (better than the word Congress which would have been TOO American though!). However, I do like the social aspect of the game with rewards and supporters, etc. It could get interesting quickly!

Nice work all around!

I didn't see any vote mechanism in this and couldn't vote for it. What cards were being drawn and discarded at the start?

I couldn't make clear sense of the game in the draw and buy or draw and bid mechanic. There are so many ways for that to turn unfun and/or grindy: getting what you want early, running out of money, etc.

Thanks for the feedback. I had interpreted the rules as that the game was not intended to reflect actual elections. Xenia, Ohio is a fictional creation of Sinclair Lewis (Babbit). It seemed appropriate. I am glad you liked the game.