"Judges should be people who have been former fighters, coaches, and others who know the sport as good as those in the ring/cage so they can use their experience along with some stats to determine the winner."
^ this is really the main point.
The idea that you can come up with a "scientific" scoring system is delusional. The "meaning" of a punch, or number of strikes, is inevitably subjective. Here is why: how many "non-power" punches is a single "power" punch worth? There can't be a formal definition as there is so much variation between the types of strikes being thrown, how cleanly they land, how hard a puncher each combatant is, how heavily the striker sat down on the punch, etc. etc. etc..
It is actually in the instructions from the commission -- under the "unified rules" -- for judges that, for example, strikes from top position on the ground are to be weighted heavier than from the bottom, given the greater leverage from top position. How much greater? That's not clear, and it really can't be, for the same reason as applies to punches standing. One heavy elbow from mount that gets through cleanly, where the guy on bottom is just shelling unsuccessfully but otherwise not doing anything to prevent the striker from rearing all the way back and coming down with all his bodyweight behind the elbow is not the same as a heavy elbow where the guy on top is having to base out and stay low (preventing him from raising up to come down with his bodyweight behind the elbow).
So how many strikes from bottom, in guard, or very well leveraged and dangerous elbows from guard is that one max-powered elbow from mount worth?
It is very much subjective, and unless the entire system of judging changes (3 live judges unassisted by some kind of amazing computers that don't exist yet replaced by some other type of judges and technical assistance), it is NECESSARILY subjective. It is impossible for a human judge to see, tally, evaluate and keep track of all that is going on in a fight in a "scientific" way. Any one who cannot see that, or does not know that, is not qualified to judge or determine who gets to be a judge. Experience and understanding of what's going on dictates an understanding that subjective and intuitive judgment and evaluation are unavoidably in play.
Most of the judges for MMA in NV and NJ (the 2 most powerful commissions, though CA could be argued to have caught up to NJ at this point for MMA, if not for boxing) don't have even 2 years of legitimate grappling experience and 2 years of training in a striking art that includes real-life intensity sparring -- both of which should be a minimum level of experience to be thought of as even being capable of making literate subjective/intuitive evaluations of action in a fight in real time.
If you've never been on the receiving end of offense that is being applied, how can you possibly intuitively evaluate a combination of lesser strikes against a combination of, or even a single, heavy strike?
More, as I said before in an older thread, when no real scoring is actually happening, someone is more on the defensive end (not necessarily the guy backing up), while someone is more attacking. Most of the judges don't know enough about how the action combines to evaluate who is more "in charge" of what's going on at any given moment, i.e. who is in an attacking vs defensive mode (this is basically the content of "octagon control").
There are plenty of very trained people who would be honored and take pleasure in judging, and replacing the existing judges, so that fighters can depend on fair treatment when fights go to judges, instead of dreading an outcome that often seems completely random, and to have nothing to do with the fight's action. As it is, probably at least 2 of three judges for any MMA but in NV don't have 2 years of solid training any martial art practiced with at least occasional full intensity.
The problem is the commissions and the inexperienced and incompetent judges. Until you fix that, it doesn't matter what scoring system is in play.
