This whole thing about judging puzzles me. There are no clear guidelines as to what we are supposed to be judging. Is it the song, the production or the technical ability of the band and singers or is it the whole thing. I too know that some songs are ropey after just a few seconds and some you have to listen till the long intro is finished to get to the crunch. That said I find that it is very common to find I am disagreeing with most. I judge the song and try to put the production and playing to one side. Some great productions but poor songs or some great players but trashy stuff that has been done to death are obviously being voted for against a better but poorly produced song.
I find it hard to make it a draw but on the few occasions that I have done so the vast majority agree. I did an experiment and deliberately voted two songs as equal when one was clearly better. Most people 87% agreed. I found that disturbing.
It is also a shame to have to vote two great songs against each other when the next two are crappy.
Perhaps a score of 1-100 for both songs would help. So less than fifty means they are both below average above 50 both are good but the one with the highest mark is the winner. Seems fairer.
The other point is with thousands of songs in some genres you cannot possibly hear and vote them all. What happens to the ones you miss. Especially when a crappy song can crop up several times. I have even had the same artist against each other with two different songs. Hardly fair on artists I have never heard.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=687727&songID=5238055