Agree with David and Thomas---I've done one hell of a lot of competitions over my career (still doing them occasionally) and that spread of results would never generate a solid gold. The only hope would be for the gold-giving judge to be so loquacious and convincing that he/she convinced all the other judges to raise their scores...and I don't see that happening.
I've done just about every type of competition and I personally value the consensus type more ---given a firm set of rules under which the judges operate, that is.
I learn something of value every time I do a consensus judging, and feel that type of award better reflects the wine anyway. One palate tells us that one person liked it. Multiple nods from multiple palates tells us there is enough in a wine to command attention; I think wine that is more complex will appeal to a wider range of palates, especially if the judges are good, and professional,
When I taste a wine in competition, I'm perfectly happy to hear Darrell Corti, or the late great David Graves, or Rebecca Chapa, or Jason Brandt Lewis, or Tim McDonald...well the list goes on...expound about how the wine impressed them. It's not about me, after all: it's about the wine.
I've even tasted with Thomas, and I'd always listen carefully to what he has to say about a wine, as he has a sensitive, perceptive and well-tuned palate. Wouldn't always agree with him, of course (and don't tell him, but sometimes he's downright full of it), but I'd certainly want to hear what he has to say.
And, yeah, been nudged---and pointedly nudged---for more medals now and then. I just ignore that. If they don't like me, they won't invite me back.