A common problem with proposals is people use many of their votes on great example questions, then lose the votes they need
See examples in This proposal will reach Commit more quickly if people only put 10 votes on a question, https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5667/is-moving-up-votes-off-a-question-to-put-on-others-frowned-upon, https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/should-everyone-use-their-upvotes-only-for-questions-that-have-less-than-10-vote
I disagree with the answer to the second question:
Artificially speeding up the definition process will backfire when you're in commitment/beta. Upvote good questions, even if it's more tempting to upvote a question with score 9.
If a question has 5 awesome questions at the top of the list and everyone keeps upvoting just those questions...it really doesn't help define the site at all. "upvote stuff to speed up the process" is not what's wanted, but upvoting the same questions repeatedly, vastly beyond 10 upvotes doesn't help define the site at all either. It just helps the site stagnate by letting interested parties essentially waste their votes; once a question has reached 20, voting (unless it gets 10 or more downvotes) is really no longer helping define the site; it's making it harder to define the site as up votes grow thin.
Instead I propose either not sorting by votes (it's far too tempting to waste your upvotes on those already highly voted posts) or showing a tooltip when you upvote a question with a score significantly higher than 10 suggesting you review lower recommended questions.