The many worlds interpretation is far more common amongst the physics community (well, the parts that care about this sort of thing.)
We don't do things in physics with polls, really. We tend to prefer maths. And, much of the in-your-face weirdness of QM simply goes away with MW. You only have to accept that all paths are taken, but only one is observable to you. Not surprising, since you're an entity that obeys quantum mechanical laws.
Since the actual predictions and experimental evidence for Copenhagen and MW are identical, it doesn't matter which you prefer. If you're not careful you run into philosophy pretty fast here - fun, but not useful.
Copenhagen (kinda, sorta, not really when you do the maths) leads people to think (and I have been guilty of this) that there could be some sort of magical non-quantum 'observer' that causes the wave function to collapse. Which is bollocks.
Many worlds forces you to consider the environment of the system (including the mythical 'observer') as fully quantum systems. Which is much closer to what the maths actually says.
Copenhagen and MW give the same answers, but Copenhagen gives sloppy thinkers a silly avenue to get lost in. "I am a privileged, magical Observer, who is not at any point affected by the measurement I make."
And, hidden variables are so strongly constrained by experimental results that you are out there in the wilds if you propose it. Not actually a crank, but carrying the burden of evidence.
We are an epiphenomenon of quantum objects interacting under the laws of quantum mechanics. And the Many Worlds interpretation allows us to move past the philosophy and make actual, real, testable prediction.
An entire colocation facility that runs Mac minis. It looks fun.