... in effect, spending newsflash's and xeldal's money in a manner that directly contradicts their wishes

Perhaps this is the core of our disagreement.

The only mechanisms for newsflash and xeldal to literally 'spend their money' would be through tips or direct payments. With that said, I assume that you did not intend the literal meaning of the phrase 'spend their money'.

In the non-literal sense, the mechanism for newsflash and xeldal to 'spend their money' is through their upvotes not through their downvotes. This is the only way the phrase 'spend their money' can make any sense (to me) beyond the literal sense.

Again, I don't agree at all that number of account holders is relevant. A 10000 account botnet is not more convincing to me than even a single highly invested stakeholder.

I should have used the phrase "$450 worth of upvote potential instead of just $200" in lieu of "32 account holders instead of just 2."