I think draws may be less likely with the way I set up the rules for diplomatic go in comparison to standard diplomacy, where capturing a majority of the supply centers is required as opposed to achieving just the plurality of area in diplomatic go.
Because only a plurality needs to be achieved, cooperating to prevent one person from winning would most likely just shift the win to another player rather than preventing a win altogether. A player in a weak position, with no shot of winning themselves, could still play a pivotal role in deciding who of the others win, and they may even choose not to cooperate out of spite. Thus, in determining whether one person wins over another, it might come down to what grudges and bad feelings have formed over the course of the game.
I think it will be difficult for all players to achieve a stable living group. However, as some players are marginalized and even possibly eliminated, that may give more space for others to solidly live. Further, I think it may be advantageous for neighboring players to negotiate peaceful settlement, while other players elsewhere on the board fall behind with fierce fighting.
Even though the plurality victory condition makes it harder to force a draw, I think the threat of throwing the game could still present the possibility of negotiating a draw. Imagine a three player game (or a game that has been reduced to three players via eliminations) where Alice and Bob are the only players that have a shot of winning, but where they may have some potential weaknesses via groups with only two eyes, giving the third player Charlie the ability to choose the winner. Even though he is not in position to achieve victory himself, his ability to threaten the other players gives him the leverage to potentially coerce both players to vote for a three-way draw, with the threat to throw the game against the player that does not comply.