- (200.91KB, 500x500, 8675309.png)
Yes, these stories are collaborations between the writer and audience, but it is not an equal relationship. As the writer, you are the one with the most power over whether your story moves or stops, and you are the one with the most responsibility to get it moving again if it starts to stall, whatever the reason for it may be.
If your readers can't come to a consensus, or don't want to discuss or debate their choices and try to get others to vote one way or another, that's on them, and there is nothing you can really do about that. A deadlock is something you risk getting any time you ask a bunch of people to decide on something when there's no clear “right” or “wrong” answer, and when it does happen, someone has to be the one to break it things are to continue. If there isn't going to be any action from the readers' end, then it must come from the writer. That's all there is to it.
So your votes are tied. You have options for resolving this. You may not like them, but they're there, and when you refuse to use any of them, you are the one choosing to not continue. Flipping a coin as a tie-breaker might remove some agency from your audience, but you would still be giving at least half of your voters something they want, both by virtue of their vote winning and the story continuing. How much agency do you give them when you choose to do nothing, and just let the story lie there? Who is getting anything they want out of this arrangement?
This whole scenario makes me think of someone driving their friends or family around town to get something to eat, except they haven't actually gotten anywhere because nobody can agree on where to go. The driver can hope that everyone might agree on something eventually, if only he just waited long enough, but at the end of the night he's still the one behind the wheel. If he decides to park somewhere and wait for a consensus to be reached, then he bears a chunk of the blame if everyone winds up going home hungry, especially when all he had to do was step up and tell everyone “fuck it, shut up, we're all going to Cracker Barrel, deal with it.” And then he flips them the bird or something. I dunno.
Is it an ideal solution? Of course not, but it's hardly an ideal situation to begin with, and it's not going to get any better unless someone does something about it.
>If my audience doesn't care to vote, I feel like I shouldn't care to write.
I understand this feeling, I really do, but surely you can see where that line of thought leads? Your audience doesn't care to vote, so you don't care to write. But if you don't care to write, why should they care to vote? They can blame their apathy on you just as easily as you pin yours on theirs, and where does that leave everyone? Bouncing blame back and forth like a ping-pong ball for a situation that nobody involved wants to be in, but nobody is willing to act to get themselves out of? Is this really better than the solutions that have been proposed?