Ok, let me play devil's advocate here for a second.
It's true in IL, coaches do rate officials, and those ratings make up a certain percentage of the "power rating" that is used in determining post season assignments. But certified (the top level) officials also get to rate other officials. And it has been (not so subtly) stated by several officials that they will rate other officials highly to "make up" for the coaches rating us lower. I'm not sure that's fair either. Do two wrongs make it right?
Also, from a state perspective, and I suppose your local association, the only way to truly rate an official is to have an objective third party actually watch them work. And, watch them more than once - how often have you had an evaluator watch, and it just happens to be your worst game of the year? (Murphy's Law.) But in IL's case, there are no where near enough qualified people to watch and evaluate all the officials. So the next best thing is to get a rating from someone who was actually at the game - in this case, the coaches. Will we probably get a lower rating from the losing coach? Probably. But then again, we may get a higher rating from the winning coach as well. So they should offset. Kinda. Perhaps.
It's no where near a perfect system, but how else does that state office get an idea of who the best officials are, when many of them live and work several hours away? They have several criteria, which include coaches' ratings, but the ratings aren't the biggest factor.