I said a big whale overrides what the rest of the community aside from the one account downvoting has valued that content to be.

Except that's not true. The rest of the community usually has very little to do with the large rewards. It's usually one or a small number of large accounts doing that. Why do you think it is more legitimate for one large account to suck up a large portion of the reward pool and assign it to one post? That's actually in conflict with a large amount of other smaller reward activity throughout the community (any very large reward takes away from all the smaller ones, since they all come out of the same pool).

There is no coherent reasoning that makes upvotes (which take from other payouts) whether large or small more legitimate than downvotes (which give back to other payouts) whether large or small. It's all just voting.

why should a big account like you care if a small account earned some extra rewards?

To be honest I don't even pay attention to whether the account receiving the rewards is large or small, and I don't think it matters. I'm sure it happens both ways. I look at the rewards and whether I think they represent a good use of Hive's reward pool and then express my opinion and prerogative as a stakeholder through voting. When I downvote, the rewards that don't get generated on that post as a result end up going to other posts by other accounts, large and small (but a great many small, in practice).

There is no free lunch on excessive payouts.