No, for a few reasons...
Would a big-vote button help? Perhaps, but it will just introduce a different set of arguments, like: "Hey, why did you only +1 my answer instead of +2 it?" and, "Why only +1's here?" (in addition to all the "Hey, why the downvotes"...)
The change would be impractical for many technical reasons
There already is a 'super upvote' option (the accept button).
You can always award a bounty if you feel an answer surpasses your just-worth-an-upvote criteria
you have what I believe is an inappropriate mindset about voting
The way you describe your thought process about voting is exactly the reason I believe that voting is broken on Stack Overflow, and why I worry about it here on Code Review.
Your thought process consists of comparing the existing answers, and choosing the one(s) you think are the best, and voting for those. That is not what I believe to be the right way to vote (especially on Code Review). The right way to vote is to determine the value you see in each answer, as individual answers, and not relative to the other answers.
If an answer provides value to the OP, then reward that answer with a vote. If it is not an appealing answer, or does not inspire you to read it, then just don't vote. If the answer is wrong, or misleading, or really badly formatted, whatever, then downvote it.
It is not your job to select the best answers, it is your job to 'like' the answers that provide value to the site, and the question asker.
On aggregate, when everyone who can vote, has cast their votes on the answers, then those answers who the most people think provides value, will 'bubble' to the top, and become the 'winning' answer.
In addition, the question asker has the accept-option, which should be used to identify the answert which the asker thought was the most valuable to them. The asker has the option (and responsibility) to determine what was most helpful to them. That accept also 'raises' that answer to the top.
Votes are not a popularity contest, they are a reward-for-value-added. If both the long, and short answers add value, then vote for both of them.
If a person aswering a question volunteers to go to a lot more effort than other answers, then that is their decision, and it is likely to get them rewarded too (if they add value).
On Code Review, we do not look for 'winning answers' we look for 'valuable answers'. If everyone who adds value gets rewarded for that, then they will get votes, feel good, and contribute more. This is why Stack Overflow is struggling with discontent people, because people are adding value, but not being rewarded for it, because voters are only voting for the 'winning' answer, not valuable answers.
It has been pointed out that bounties are available for this, and they exist in part for this exact reason. When you offer a bounty, you can select the option: "One or more of the answers is exemplary and worthy of an additional bounty." When the bounty is offered, you have to wait 24 hours before you can award it. In this time the bounty will draw additional people to view the question, and will likely generate more voting too. This will also reward those people who have valuable answers.