I feel the other way about it. I always hit no to surrender (for me it's a respect thing for the game and the players involved). But I can't tell you how many extremely winnable games my team has surrendered for just because we've had a single bad fight. For instance about a week ago I was playing a ranked game, we were up in gold, up kills, up in levels, up in towers, and up in dragons. We even had a team comp that had better scaling. We had taken two of their inhibitors, but we lost one teamfight because we had been caught unaware/bad positioning, and got aced only taking about 2 of them down. They got one inhib, but we were still doing better than them in every feasible way, yet the team had psychologically thought that we couldn't win, and 4-1'd me on a surrender vote.
Imagine how much more that would happen if you only needed 3 votes to surrender. You have to look at the reasonings of why the people are playing the game. Some people like to finish games out regardless of whether it's a win or a lose, because surrendering is more shameful than putting your all into a game and being defeated. Some people would disagree, that they'd like to surrender rather than give the enemies the satisfaction of winning.
The main issue is, when you step onto the Rift, you're expected to play it out. If time's such an issue for you, then you shouldn't be playing in the first place. I can maybe understand if it's been an hour and there's no victory in sight, but most games aren't like that. But how unfair is it to those 2 people who think that they can win, vs. the 3 people who think they can't? Worst case scenario for the 3 that want to surrender is that you'll lose eventually anyways, but just imagine the frustration if you're having a good game, winning even, and because 3 people are performing poorly they decide it's time to surrender. This is the reason that they make it require 4-1, instead of a simple majority, because nobody's game should be ruined simply because the majority has decided to ruin it.
