It takes great skill to come in second regularly!
More seriously, though: penalizing the "winner" creates a
perverse incentive to not win. If you're one of the later voters, you have the advantage of knowing that you can vote for someone else's acro to spare yourself the deal. I admit I used to do this, but don't any more because hey, it's just a game, and dealing really isn't much of a hardship, and it all resets every 25 rounds anyway. Who won the last round, anyway? Or the one before that?
Unlike Balderdash or Fictionary (or Dixonary, which is still going strong if any of you care to join), there's no "real acro" to try to guess, so the dealer is at no more an advantage than anyone else by choosing the letters.
Back when we had fewer submitters, we even discussed the idea of allowing more than one acro per person if there weren't enough.
I wouldn't mind everyone joining in every round, but we should ask the follow up question: does the "dealer" gain an advantage in the game by choosing the acro? If so, they would win more often and we'd end up with winning streaks. Maybe the last place player should deal? Maybe we just rotate the deal to "the person on your left" so everyone gets a (roughly) equal amount of deals? Maybe the acro is determined by random number generator (Hey Gypsy, can we have dice that randomly roll letters of the alphabet?)
So I'm fine with experimenting with a new rule or set of rules, but let's not create a new problem fixing an old one.