I just left this comment at @lukestoke's post, but I'll just copypaste it here since it's the same topic:

Upvotes and downvotes are tools to allocate stake. They are the same action, just opposite of each other.

This is the way I've tried to explain it in the past:

If a user feels a post is under-rewarded, he will upvote.

If a user feels a post is over-rewarded, he will downvote.

There's nothing more to it than that. It's a huge double standard that people feel people have the "right" to upvote their content with their full stake, allocating them STEEM, but somehow lack the right to use that same stake to allocate STEEM away to other users.

There have been several members who have enjoyed the regular - sometimes automatic - support of heavy-stake users for every post. They've said nothing. But as soon as another big user has noticed this, and countered with a downvote, all of a sudden it's a huge problem that one user has this much power of the post payouts.

But one user upvoting the posts to big payouts was never a problem. Go figure.

That's the whole point of STEEM power: a say in that particular portion of the reward pool.

Payouts are not your money until the voting window closes. I think this is the biggest hangup a lot of people have.

They are potential payouts, subject to community consensus.

I've tried my damnest to say this so many times. In so many ways.