Not at all, You can still vote on all of them, You should still vote on all of them. Your voting power just diminishes with each vote, a little quicker than it did before. All that's happened is the curation rewards, for the same activity, have been reduce a little and redistributed to more passive users.
Call it a small tax on good performance. But this tax is not gobbled up by some centralised monster, it's redistributed to valuable community members.
It is passive users (in their millions) that will make or break this platform. NOT Active Curators (in their hundreds)
I'm talking about the author rewards, which is what gives the authors exposure and the community diversity. Let's say 10 active curators were voting for a well hidden post. Earlier these two curators would discover it and get it to $20 or so. That would give the post a fighting chance at being discovered by more casual curators.
Now, to vote on 50-100 posts, this post would only be $2 (or whatever) by these curators and get lost in a sea of overlooked posts. Curators will no longer have an incentive to curate, and will simply give up.
At this scale, the voting power does not diminish "a little quicker", but very significantly so.
We have seen earlier during the days of more restrictive voting that there was no diversity whatsoever. Since the voting was opened up, at last we have active human curators and groups, and more diversity starting to flourish. This move will just take us back to a Steemit with less diversity, where casual voters pile it on the Trending posts.
I agree that bots need to be stopped, but not at the expense of actual curation. As people have suggested, there are pretty easy ways to differentiate bots from humans. Heck, Steemit itself has a mechanism in place for new users.