The rules behind Steemit are set up to incentivize the kind of behavior you are calling out here. The white paper claims that micropayments don't work, because paying even a small amount to support content requires too much cognitive effort. It then goes on to claim that Steemit upvotes don't suffer from this, because the upvoter is not paying--the payment is from the blockchain's reward pool. However, since you vote conveys a certain amount of that future reward and since voting power is limited, upvotes are essentially micropayments. Plus, my understanding is that the more upvotes, the more it splits the reward pool. As a result, from a purely economic perspective voting for yourself and minimizing votes for others makes sense. The FAQ is clear about the impact of other votes on payouts: "If other posts receive more upvotes, the potential payout of the post can go down."
All that said, you and many others are working to help others here, but to really help, the economic rules need to change. My understanding, though, is that it is (1) not easy to convince the powers that be to change those rules; and (2) not easy to actually figure out how to change them to achieve some desired change in behavior without introducing other means to game the system.
Great post... and I'm proud to be part of #steemitbloggers @steemitbloggers
@toddrjohnson I agree 100% with everything you have said, especially regarding the powers that be... as for the other stuff - I am no guru when it comes to the technical aspects, but do understand what you have said and it makes complete sense... but even more so you closure. As for the #SteemitBloggers - we are thrilled to have you with us and yes, a truly fantabulous bunch of people ❤️
Thank you for your lovely comment and for the wonderful compliment towards our community.