I already knew about most of this and I know many people did. I'm glad you're bringing this up the way you did.
Whether or not these are voting abuse depends on everyone's individual opinion.
I still think the idea of vote cancelling brought up by 
The idea is pretty simple, anyone who would want to cancel all the votes of someone could set up an option and cancel each of the people they want to cancel.
These cancelling votes would be anonymous.
We could set a % of our voting power to cancel someone else votes and this would be done automatically.
I love the idea. There could be some pitfall. First the 
What would Smart Ballots and Kamikaze voters mean to Democracy?
Being an Anarchist, I like to work from first principles. If I assume the popular political theology is morally acceptable means of making decisions regarding what people may or may not do, then I would like to add a new voting system and means of fully “expressing ones vote” that I feel would truly capture a legitimate outcome.
In other words, if all people are equal and entitled equal weight to vote for what ever they want, for what ever reason they want to, then it should be possible to express your opinion as the exact opposite of someone else. This is a perfectly valid opinion and deserves as much respect as their opinion. After all, you could just as easily say that they are the one who is adopting an opinion opposite to your own. It is not possible to say who is positive and who is negative, they are merely reflections of equal value with no beginning and no end.
The act of negating someone else’s opinion does not require you to know their opinion, because you are free to change your opinion to counter theirs as fast as they can change their opinion. The outcome will always result in a net vote of 0.
...
If man does not have a right to counter balance another man in the political system, then the game is rigged. His right to cast a vote that expresses his wishes has been denied. He has been given a false choice rather than a free choice. After all, if you cannot express a vote that is exactly opposite of someone else, then that means not all opinions are on the table. It means that the people who get to decide the options are the rulers, not the voters.
...there is currently no way to “down vote” an “up vote” and therefore, the system is unbalanced and subject to abuse.
...
What if instead of down voting a post, you could down vote a voter? When you down vote a voter you nullify their voting power with your own voting power. It is the moral equivalent of casting equal and opposite votes on every post without offending the posters.
Under such a system authors who vote for them selves and curators who vote robotically would be negated. Only those who vote responsibly would remain.
Origin of the Right to Vote and how the system denies this right
For each person who chooses to vote rather than negate there exists another person who was not negated. This means that there would still be a large body of voters whose opinions could be polled.
This body of individuals would be the least polarizing group. A group of people whom have been pre-filtered by the masses to be the closest group of representatives that could be found. Everyone that was eliminated was a “polar opposite” of someone else and thus represent the set of least representative. Those that remain are therefore “most representative” and their subsequent votes will be more in line with the masses opinion than any other group of representatives.
...
If you believe that voting is a fundamental right derived from our human nature, then you must also hold that negative voting is the most expressive means of casting a ballot and representing yourself.
All other definitions of the “right to vote” are a statutory right or privilege granted to a person or group by a government. However, this definition is in contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that government authority comes from voting. Therefore, government cannot have authority to define the source of its own authority. If you believe government gets to set rules on voting, then you believe voting isn’t a human right, but a government granted privilege that can be revoked. In other words, you believe that government authority is derived from some other source than the will of the people expressed through voting.
Let's restore the right to vote by allowing people to express their anti-representative and negate their vote.
The Politics of Negative Voting
People are irrational yet believe they are perfectly sane. They will take personal offense any time anyone attempts to expose the disconnect between reality and their own delusions. This isn’t a reason to abandon a system of negative voting, but rather a reason to implement it. Anything that forces people to come face to face with reality and stop hiding their violent tendencies behind an anonymous voting box will lead to a more civil society.
RE: Meet Steem's #1 Author!