That is certainly your perogative. If you read my other posts, you will see that i believe people ought to be allowed vote however they wish.

three points though. Well, two points and a counter offer.

1.I enjoy irony. And because of this, i pray in my heart of hearts that the next big "institution" here on steemit is just a hodgpodge of conspiracy theory pizzagate stuff, so that i can watch to see if you counter my downvotes.
2.Readers of this post and @berniesanders response should note that he himself , if you take his votes and explanations of them at face value, does not appear to be ideologically opposed to downvoting subjectively bad or overpaid content. He does it himself, and there have been multiple high-profile instances where he has done just that (EDIT: previous sentence changed from 'he does it himself quite frequently' after @berniesanders reply below). Personally, i have to wonder what his objection is to a group collectively doing the same thing he does himself. (edit "quite regularly" removed, based on reply below)

So here's my counter offer (and no, i don't really expect you to take me up on it.... its just amusing to make it). Its your chance to expose me as the jackbooted thug we all know I am in my heart of hearts.

After I post my criteria for how this trail will be voting, just explain to everyone else which part of it is wrong or evil, then counter the wrong or evil parts. Or my use of the trail outside of the criteria i set.

To me at least (not that you have any reason to care what I think) it would make it look like a legitimate philosophical disagreement, rather than an attempt to nullify the opinions of smaller stakeholders just because you think they ought not to be voting them.