I've also made a few observations in regards to voting;
I often see posts that have received an upvote (due to finding them insightful or a contribution, sometimes probably because it's a point that others might agree with), only then to later see it get "downvoted" again to its neutral state. I know for a fact it's not because the vote was removed - as I've seen it on some of my own posts, and there are two separate votes, an upvote and a later downvote.
The downvote is interesting, because it raises the question if;
it was only done because some poster feels the system was misused with the upvote and wanted to "neutralize" it
as an instrument to take a side in an ongoing debate/argument between two or multiple posters (i.e. to lower the posts credibility)
Simply because one "disagreed" with it or found one sentence among a hundred that might have been incorrect (perhaps it also lacked a "IMO" before it) to then legitimatize the downvote
I think the psychological aspect is interesting, because some posts that have been "upvoted" seem to attract more "downvotes" than if the post in question wasn't voted at all.
This and more is quite easily noticeable in topics where there is some form of debate going on where it is my impression that voting is used as a form of siding with a party (or against it). I'm happy for the system to be used as a means to "agree with someone" - it's quite visible to see that many posts, even one liners like Turbos Casio joke get upvoted, so why not upvote other posts that people think are good points being raised - but given that the point system is attached or signalizes a posters credibility makes the downvote more meaningful and subject to abuse.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II