nope, no way... point of a draw is so that everyone gets an equal share... 2 people equals 50%, 3 equals 33.33333...% 4 equals 25%, so on and so forth... division based off of SC's would essentially be the same as announcing a winner without someone actually getting the solo and would also defeat the meaning of the word Draw...

How are the points distributed in a cancelled game? Is it the same like a draw?

No. Everybody just get the initial points back. It's like the game never happened.

Thanks for the replies. Has anybody else noticed players pushing for draws when the game looks lost or am I seeing things where there's nothing to be seen?

some people do that just to be doing it, I mean you never know if the others decide to draw or not, most players that do it, dont say anything they just click the vote

I always say it as a joke when I'm losing.

i always hit draw when i think i have no chances at the win, but i don't forces the others to do it (Except in very clear stalemates or things like that). Just in case people decide to draw, i'm up to it. And i've seen it quite a while and i understand it. But don't feel forced to draw if you've got the upper edge!

Daiichi, i think you've hit the nail right on the head. Great post.

But I wouldn't ignore players who want to draw in no in-game messaging games. You can't communicate in this games and everybody want to have fun while playing.
I played such a game with anonymous players on the Classic Map on a different website. There were Britain and Germany with 7 and 3 SC's and there was Austria with 15 SC's. I played Italy with 9 SC's and I had arranged that Germany and Britain also mobilized there units against Austria, so I broke the stalemate line of Austria. At this point Austria saw that it probably didn't win and decide to draw. Germany and Britain also vote drawing.
I think in this situation you have to make a difficult decision. You could go on with playing and maybe you would win, but you also force the other players to play a game which they probably don't want to play any more. So they could go into civil disorder and you win because you don't accept that the others want to have fun, too. Or you also vote drawing.
I voted draw and in this case it wasn't the right decision. I looked at the profile of the Britain and the Germany player and saw that both draw many games with this tactic and get points. But I don't know it before.
So I think it should be something like a code of honor to vote drawing only if you think drawing is the only possibility of finishing a game, especially in no in-game messaging games where you "manipulate" the thoughts of others in some way, if you say it as a joke or not.
And I like the first point of tricky that you could finish a game earlier but distribute the points in a way that players with better chances of winning get more points.

@tobi, in gunboats (no in-game messaging, usually also anon) the draw vote, as well as the pause, is just a way of comunicating like s holding your neighbour. If i'm in a gunboat and someone votes pause, i'd vote pause, because that means he wants to go away for a while a needs the pause, but he can't ask out loud. However, i don't draw in games i think i can win. And in any case, i give it a shot, to try and win, and if i get stuck, i can always get back to the draw plan. Drawing or not, however, depends on the player and not on any code of honor. But you should always do what you want to do, and not be forced to do otherwise. This is important, and it makes a good player too. A good player has to know how to avoid being influenced by others.

But I think, it's not so important to win, if the other players don't want to go on in a game. You're right, that they can't force you to draw, but it is also wrong when 4 players play a game, only because 1 of them want it. I felt like I will force the others to play this game and not like they force me to draw. Now I simply want to avoid those situations because it's also annoying if they all don't enter their moves and go in civil disorder. Then I don't have to play a game with others.

Maybe they should work together to destroy the one holding back the draw. If they can't, there is obviously a reason for this one player _not_ to vote draw. (and he'll win anyway in a few turns)

I agree with Oli. Toby1 I think you're worrying to much of what other players may think. When they joined the game, they knew that a game isn't over till it's over, unless there's a clear stalemate line that can't be broken (in which case, if the draw vote doesn't pass, I'd ask a Mod's help to end the game).
Now, although a draw is basically a win since nobody did better than you, you do well not voting a draw if you think you can have a solo win. If your opponents are good players, they'll let you soon discover whether you were right or not. If instead they go in civil disorder, well... then this is not your problem and investigating on why they did so is quite useless. So just win.

I think it's poor sportsmanship to no longer enter orders when you're losing. It's not like the Detroit Lions just walk off the field when they're getting shellacked. So, as the person who is winning, I don't pay any mind to whether or not they're still enjoying themselves, because when I'm the person who is losing, I stay in there because You Never Know. I've been a 2-center Russia whose only logical orders are A Moscow Support Hold Warsaw, A Warsaw Support Hold Moscow for three years and got a spot in the draw because neither England nor Turkey wanted to risk the other taking my centers. I've seen Italy reduced to just Portugal getting a spot in a draw. These things happen. You never know.