I cannot imagine that there are very many people, more than two or three, that would spend money  and time on multiple accounts for the purpose of being able to place more down votes on things.   That just doesn't pass the smell test.  

The first thing that comes to mind when I think about accounts with supporter status that don't participate is that they are people that want to avoid ads, or to support the site that they visit.   In some cases it's probably a combination of those things.

Anecdotally, I lurked here for a couple of years before I created an account. During that time, I sometimes felt a bit guilty that I was coming here for news and entertainment and giving nothing back to the site. So, I created an account and started participating. That made me feel like I was not just taking. Later on, my desire to further support the people that do the real work for the site, combined with my desire to not be bombarded with annoying ads, caused me to subscribe as a supporter.  I can imagine many scenarios where I could have just skipped straight to supporter, rather than participant. In fact, there are lots of people that don't like to get involved in discussions online because they often turn into train wrecks. But, that doesn't mean those people don't want to show some support.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that nobody is doing this secondary supporter account thing. I just can't imagine that it's a widespread issue.

Yes src is hynad

The ones that get me is seeing someone get downvoted for asking a legitimate unbiased question, what I would like to see is a like and dislike column that way  you can se the split also you should only be able to down vote after you have made a reply.

Considering that most (not all, but a good majority) are comments that are meant to troll or be "rebellious", I think it's fine to keep the downvote system in place.

Does this have any connection with the childish responses on the Uncharted movie article that was posted?

I don't know how technically doable this is, but what about limiting the number of downvotes that a given user can give each week (or whatever time period you like)? Leave everything else alone, but limit people to 5-10 downvotes per week. Then people will need to use them judiciously.

You sure are mad and petty over losing voting power lol

When you start accepting hiding 'rebellious' comments, you're getting pretty close to an echo chamber. It sure is nice when your opinion is the one being echoed, but it's not very welcoming for the others. I don't think disagreement or being 'rebellious' are good enough reasons for downvoting, let alone trying to hide such comments.

For example the Uncharted movie article you mention seems to be an echo chamber of those that express a decent amount of positivity about the movie, but tough luck if you're not keen on the look of the movie. I counted one comment about torrenting and one that I felt was a bit childish, but the even the latter didn't deserve downvote bombing in my opinion, let alone the others that were downvoted. Perhaps we disagree, but I feel like it's important to let all reasonable opinions be expressed (and heard).

echochamber also known as a circlejerk

"Rebellious" whare you, 14?

Just because people have a different viewpoint doesn't make it "rebellious". Oh god yes gotta be such a rebel on a video game forum! I get so much pussy from that!

Because the people wanting change are the people more likely to post. I voted no, I didn't make a post in this thread before now. That doesn't make my opinion less valid.

Don't get annoyed because the poll doesn't reflect your desired outcome and now claim it's being manipulated. The majority do not want downvotes to go.