For example, if 3 people participate in the vote, 2 of them are willing to travel to both Royal City and Volgograd, and 1 person is willing to travel only to Yekaterinburg. When dividing the votes, each city will receive 1 point, but in reality, the quorum in Yekaterinburg will be twice as low.

And this is what is called a "responsible choice."
I repeat: if a person has n points, then they have the right to distribute these n points among the candidates. Because otherwise, they will have 2n points, meaning that at the algorithmic level, they will have an advantage in influencing the vote compared to the person who wants to vote only for one city. This creates unequal conditions for voting, since the person voting for one city turns out to be "disadvantaged" in terms of the significance of their opinion (compared to the person who votes for two cities). And this will encourage everyone to vote for two cities – that is, to vote against the third city, which is not correct. We are voting NOT AGAINST any application, but FOR any application.
It must be understood that voting and willingness to travel are absolutely not the same thing... And therefore, the votes of those who have traveled several times before are more significant, since the probability of traveling is higher.