I study whether decentralized shareholder voting can aggregate heterogeneous investor preferences into stable collective choices. In ten survey experiments with more than 14,000 respondents, I elicit complete rankings over shareholder-voting alternatives, including scenarios anchored in actual proxy-ballot items. Rankings vary systematically with ideology and are consistent with grouped single-crossing implications across populations and choice sets. Condorcet cycles are negligible. Thus, median-voter logic can re-emerge even amid disagreement over profit, climate, and other corporate objectives. In multi-option shareholder choices, plurality can miss compromise alternatives by ignoring second-choice support, whereas ranking-based rules more closely track an incentivized willingness-to-pay benchmark.