There is something to be said for the idea that only historical posts which can no longer earn profits should have the dollar value shown. Although even if that was the case, there would still be bias toward posts made by power users with a strong public profile. The urge to "chase the dollar" and every user's natural FOMO (fear of missing out) would lead to behaviors where instead of judging a post by its earnings, they would judge it by who else had been voting for it and who posted it. Neither scenario places full value on the actual content of the post as opposed to the context in which it exists.
The fundamental premise of Steemit and its weighted voting system is that certain opinions are worth more than others to begin with, and in that sense the system is not a democracy, but rather a meritocracy. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario that could keep the premise of the platform intact without encouraging a "pile on" into already-popular content. It's also, arguably, not incorrect to behave that way, given that the rules that are in place seem designed to encourage such behavior.
Even still, if you believe that posting good content has a higher likelihood of long-term success than posting bad content, the system will ultimately reward the users who consistently do a proper job of both posting and curating. But there will be variance in the short term, which can lead to strange situations such as posts of perceived low value becoming successful just because one or two power users like those posts enough to show support.