How to mitigate people down voting for reasons of personal prejudice, vendetta or grudges which arise from contention in Steemit discussions.

This seems like a serious problem which will prevent people from making sincere posts and comments if they feel those are contrary to the beliefs or dogmas of users who hold significant Steem Power and could result in them losing the majority of their potential earnings. As the premise of Steemit is that quality content will be produced based on financial incentives this scenario presents a conflict of interest for the authors.

In my opinion anything that limits the freedom of speech on this platform goes strictly against the ethos of Steemit and is likely to result in a great deal of content being tailored to align with the views of large holders of Steem Power.

Mandatory justification for flagging/down voting posts is one potential solution to this problem.

Statistics could be compiled and published which outline the objectivity of these justifications given by the downvoters. Given that this is a democratic platform these users who do not vote objectively could not be penalized but through these statistics their reputation would be at risk if they do not act in an objective manner. Perhaps an additional role could be created within the Steem system akin to the witness function whos sole role would be to assess these justifications and be somehow rewarded by the system. The selection of the individuals to fill those roles could be a democratic process such as is implemented with the election of witnesses.

An alternative could be to diminish the down voting down/flagging influence or power of users who according to the above mentioned statistics have a bad track record of biased and unsubstantiated voting.

This is not a reference to excessively rewarded posts being down voted if the major SP holders feel the reward is unwarranted. After all they have the most at stake in this ecosystem and can drive the Steemit platform in whatever direction they feel is most beneficial for its success be exerting their influence on rewards received by users.

Any comments or suggestions on how this issue could be deal with in a fair and democratic manner?