Steemit voting is different than the normal voting we are used to. Every vote, quite literally, counts. This is unlike most elections we are used to wherein only 50.1% (or less) of votes end up counting. This may seem more equitable than simple "majority rules" elections, and indeed it may be, but it also presents problems as well, for we humans remain only mediocre at adapting to new paradigms.
Consider a US election run in the fashion of Steemit voting , or the way Steemit Bid-bots work. Every vote results in an equal proportion of the agreed upon bounty based on contribution – in this case, "rulership of the free (ahem) world". If you get 1% of the vote, you get 1% of the ruling time.
Let's further suppose, for illustrative purposes, that the KKK has rallied 1% of the total vote in support of Hitler's Ghost, and BLM has rallied 3% of liberals into supporting a dual ticket of Marion Barry and OJ "The Juice" Simpson.
Stake weighted voting, in such a ludicrous hypothetical, would result in rule by the criminally insane (or, at least crackheaded) a full 4% of the time. There is, at least arguably, a reason we don't always do it this way.
Steem voting works akin to our hypothetical election of Hitler's Ghost. The final result is not filtered down to a binary winner/loser. With Reddit, on the other hand, the upvotes are simply "totalled in with" the downvotes, resulting in the (completely incorrect) illusion that there are no downvotes on Reddit.
Steemit gives us information that we aren't always used to seeing expressed directly in a numerical fashion - namely, that some percentage of people will likely hate us, no matter what we do. Sure, rewards are totaled, but downvotes are treated in a special fashion with their own icons and functions such as hiding posts, comments, and images.
The reason upvotes/downvotes are merged into a total on Reddit is the same reason Facebook resisted the dislike button for years...and years. Humans do not react well to negative feedback, even when they know, logically, they may be producing something that many people will not like. Our ego investments with our creations, even our "shit-posts", can not be easily left at the door from whence we entered.
Let's look at whatever the current top post at Reddit is. No cherry-picking.
With how much most of the Star Wars movies from the past 15 years have sucked, we can all probably agree that there is really no harm in a fan recreation of a classic, albeit somewhat anticlimactic, scene. Any fresh Star Wars content that isn't being humped by Disney for money would be welcomed by fans, there are no spoiler considerations of merit, and nobody is asking for any money. It was obviously popular enough to make it to the top of Reddit, and if it doesn't interest you, move on. That's how a reasonable person would think. Right?
5% downvotes means over 1000 people cared enough to log in and click down-vote. Approximately 1007, to be precise - although Reddit hides the exact numbers for reasons that are, again, salient to this post.
There is no way to reconcile both the full transparency and accounting of all opinions that Steemit offer, with the ego-soothing validation of pretending everyone, everywhere, will like us all the time.
I'm not preaching or suggesting anything be done. I've made my thoughts clear in previous posts. I've experienced the flagging that's going around lately as well, and overall, I think it's counter productive. However, I'm often surprised we don't see even more flags than we currently do. I guess what I'm saying is that we should all, logically, deal with even unjust flaggings better than we do. Yet, it is normal and expected that we do not, and as a result, they will continue to have a far greater effect on content creators than simply the rewards they remove.
Remember, this guy has a Steemit account too:
We also have a Radio Station! (click me)
...and a 5000+ active user Discord Chat Server! (click me)
Sources: Reddit, Google, Techwalla
Copyright: South Park, Star Wars, John Cougar Mellencamp, Juicy Juice