There might be more of a conversation about self voting in politics if (1) votes were public and, (2) the weight of a vote were multiplied by ones wealth or perhaps even tax bill as @l0k1 suggested.

On Steem we have a public vote so we are under more scrutiny for our voting habits, as we should be. And it is not one person / one vote here, votes are stake (i.e. steem power) weighted. If politicians were wealthy (ahem, Donald Trump) then their votes might eclipse many thousands or even millions of regular peoples' votes. I can't imagine that not starting a serious discussion, or happening in an parallel universe.

That the power regenerates is besides the point. The rewards pool rewards will have been distributed unfairly. Once these newly mined Steem (and SBD) are gone, they are gone.

Vigilante perhaps, but again I reject to connotation of violence. When down votes are used as a bullying tactic, okay I'll give you that, they are very negative and if someone is down voting everything you post then people need to step up to defend you. My point is that down votes, which obviously negative, are appropriate in many if not most cases. We can't ban people from saying bad things about each other, nor should we, just because it is not nice. Disagreement is something to be facilitated, and as you point out, curbed if disproportionate.

Peace and love only get us so far. Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than the idea that if we just loved each other all our problems would go away. It is insanely naive.