Youtube gave up on a sliding scale ages ago... maybe it's time to follow suit.

just a like/dislike button, funny/not funny and matched pacing yes/no

That *might* be doable, but it could have some advantages and disadvantages. For example, some parodies on the site might match the pacing better than others. That is, a particular parody might be perfectly paced in the beginning, but not so well later on. Still, one could vote "no" in the pacing category if the new system is implemented.

However, I do like the idea.

Judging Pacing by scale is too important a judging factor to many of us for it to be dropped and consolidated into mere yes/no. It serves sometimes as a tool to improve technique.

And there has always been a problem of people writing perfectly decent, serious and sincere parodies that get lobbed down stats-wise for not being "funny".

For me, there are miles of differences between Liking, Loving and Hating a Parody.

How about a 3 Point scale for Loving, Liking ,Hating and a 3 point scale for Pacing Great, OK and Horrible.?

a 1-5 rating doesn't tell me what a post with a bunch of comments on it would. I don't think I would mind a like or don't like thing for people to click.

I just noticed this thread and thought I'd like to put in my two cents.
 
My recommendation is to go with the Facebook model - you either vote in favor of a parody or you don't vote at all, since there would be no other option.  The main advantage with this model is that it automatically eliminates the anonymous 1-1-1 troll votes that plague the site.
 
IMHO, the voting system as it stands is completely useless to the parody writers who wish to use it to improve their skills.  I see many instances where votes of 5 are given for pacing where there are obvious pacing errors.  I also see many instances where votes of less than 5 for pacing are given deservedly, but such voters don't supply any specifics to explain their votes.
 
As for the argument that a sliding scale is needed for those wishing to receive feedback for improving technique, that could be accomplished much more effectively within comments by pointing out the strong and weak aspects of the parody being reviewed.

Sorry for taking so long to answer the question, Chucky :)

Just thinking.. I'd prefer to keep the current 1..5 system as it shows the 1-votes for what they are - there are relatively few parodies actually worthy of 111 votes, so it's clear that anyone voting that way is doing it because they're a bit of a David Cameron ("Paul Dacre" is the usual one to use on this side of the pond, but I'm not sure that you'd know who the Daily Mail editor is over there); a binary "like/don't like" doesn't show that the voter's an antisocial idiot in anything like the same way.

IMHO the only way to root out the trolly types is to remove anonymity, i.e. force a login - a bit like here on the inthe00s forum, where who gave what karma/fudge is clear to see. This would probably reduce voting numbers, but I suspect most votes (of all numbers) are cast by regulars anyway at the moment.