So would it be more appropriate to count it in

Yes — but only if you convert it the right way. A true percentage needs a base: "share of total premium." Multiplying the ratio by 100 is not a percentage of anything meaningful — it's what caused the confusion (0.52 → "52% bullish" when actually 66% of the premium was bearish).

Convert like this:

Bullish share = Bullish ÷ (Bullish + Bearish) — the neutral line is 50%, like any percentage. Bearish share is just 1 − that.

Now the numbers read naturally:

• $MSFT: 27/73 bearish-dominant — deepest red ✓
• $AMZN: 34/66 — mid ✓
• $GOOGL: 37/63 — closest to balanced ✓

Why percentage beats ratio here: the ratio (X:1) is anchored at 1.0 and doesn't answer "how much of the total?" It only tells relative magnitude — and worse, values below 1 look like "less than 1 for every 1" while percentage instantly reads as "the bear camp owns ~2/3 of the premium." The asymmetric feel disappears: 73% bearish vs 27% bullish is unambiguous.

Caveat: shares-of-total change when total changes. $AMZN's 34% bullish share and $GOOGL's 37% are close in share terms, but AMZN had ~40% more total premium, so the dollar-volume of bearish bets on AMZN was larger. In options flow, I'd keep both: percentage share for readability, absolute premium for magnitude. Ratio → percentage is the cleaner mental model.