Sharing is counter-intuitive

[leander-j]

Disclaimer: This is a design decision point

I do understand the logic that shares are always given to the highest-rated option to which a specific fraction of participants can agree. But I would argue that the result of this at least looks counter-intuitive and might even not be in the interest of voters.

If two options are agreed to by the same 80% with a similar rating maybe they'd like to distribute their shares on the options. The current implementation implies a "the winner takes it all" logic. I think at the core of this lies the premise that in the end everybody still has exactly one vote/one share.
Of course, the current logic perfectly follows the basic principle of effective altruism, meaning that if one option is 0.001% more effective (here: more popular) than another one, I will donate all my money to the first option and nothing to the second. The question then is whether democracy/consensus should follow the same principles of maximum effectivity and all-or-nothing