The Problem for Answers:
Suppose a new question comes in and has 20 views on it before the first answer is submitted. The first answer is decent, so when the question hits 520 views it has 10 votes, or 1 vote for every 50 views. Also, several other answers have been submitted, but they aren't better than the first answer, so sorting by votes brings the best answer to the top.
However, let's say that a better answer is submitted at 520 views, maybe one that will receive on average 1 vote for every 25 views on that specific answer. On average, when will that answer rise to the top?
1020 views would make sense if the answers were on the same footing for views. However, people do not always read all the answers, and since the better answer (normally) starts at the bottom and has to work its way up, it will take much longer to accumulate enough votes to overcome the top answer since the top answer will get more views than the better answer.
In fact, if half or more of the people who read the first answer leave before reading the second, the better answer will never surpass the number one answer unless it gets lucky!
The Problem for Questions:
I often try to find "popular" and "canonical" posts using the "votes" sort view. This works poorly for several reasons:
Votes are a function of attention as much as quality, and attention is fickle. For one thing, it is a function of age. Even worse, if a question has ever gone "hot" or been "featured" it will have received hundreds of times the number of views by users who can vote than if it had not. Presumably we want to provide a view that "allows the best posts to bubble to the top" regardless of their age or luck.
Back to Answers: One can vaguely try to discount votes by views in Question lists because the number of views on the question is listed. However, if you do a Post search there is no indication whatsoever of the number of views, so one can't apply this heuristic to answers (which, in that view, is often what one is most interested in!).
It's tough to compare question quality, but here's a reasonably controlled example: This question was posed, followed promptly by this corollary question. The second question went hot: As of this writing it had 2400 views and 18 votes. The first question did not: Presently it has 160 views and 3 votes. Is the second question 6 times as "good/helpful" as the first? I don't think so. Is it 133/53 times as good? Arguably. But note how under the current system one drowns out the other due to luck.
Now look at the answers to the two questions: Certainly the accepted answer in each case is the best answer. But on the second question that answer was provided when it was no longer hot, and so it has half the votes of the answer that was there while it was hot. (Fortunately, in this case, the asker of the second question is an experienced and diligent user, so he marked the best answer and it sits at the top. But if he hadn't then the best answer would wallow below the hot answer, and only one person – the asker – could ameliorate that!)