...I know, see update. 

(I saw that later... I tend to comment on _the post itself_ before browsing the comments... seems fairer and more honest and less biased by others, somehow)

@Undisciplined's comment in this thread is also pointing at the same issue.  I basically agree, and it boils down to some kind of design choice about what kind of platform SN wants to be and the philosophy of its front page

SimpleStacker

if the majority of participants prefers item A to item B, then the 

 should also rank item A higher than item B.  Stacker News currently doesn't seem to satisfy this, because a small set of highly motivated zappers/downzappers can boost broadly unpopular posts to the top, or shoot broadly popular posts to the bottom.

WEEEELLLL... on this one I'll push back. Seen exclusively as a front-page post thing (analogous to an election), you're right.

Taking a step back and taking SN front-page 

 sats to do with whatever we please, the ordering can reasonably shift.

a redistribution from those who care a lot about promoting/demoting some idea to the general SN population via the rewards pool.

Democracy/voting analogy: I may prefer Candidate A over B by some margin, but if B and his disciples run around offering me 

 to vote A, I'll make a quick assessment and say "fine, with that extra incentive in mind I'll go with A."

I'll happily take people's sats in exchange for their preferred noise to dominate the front-page of this community-driven forum.

Update: of COURSE, Undisc is more succint than I ever could be. Boring.

You're sort of assuming that the objective is to have the front page be ordered such that it best satisfies passive readers, when the reality is that we each constantly choose where each post ranks and how many sats we want to retain, jointly.

econ

Pleb Economist #12: Stacker News and Social Choice Theory

> if the majority of participants prefers item A to item B, then the *common ordering* should also rank item A higher than item B.  Stacker News currently doesn't seem to satisfy this, because a small set of highly motivated zappers/downzappers can boost broadly unpopular posts to the top, or shoot broadly popular posts to the bottom.

WEEEELLLL... on this one I'll push back. Seen exclusively as a front-page post thing (analogous to an election), you're right. 
Taking a step back and taking SN front-page *plus* sats to do with whatever we please, the ordering can reasonably shift.

...and downsats/boosts are **a redistribution from those who care a lot about promoting/demoting some idea to the general SN population via the rewards pool.**

Democracy/voting analogy: I may prefer Candidate A over B by some margin, but if B and his disciples run around offering me *money* to vote A, I'll make a quick assessment and say "fine, with that extra incentive in mind I'll go with A."

I'll happily take people's sats in exchange for their preferred noise to dominate the front-page of this community-driven forum.

---

Update: of COURSE, Undisc is more succint than I ever could be. Boring.  
> You're sort of assuming that the objective is to have the front page be ordered such that it best satisfies passive readers, when the reality is that we each constantly choose where each post ranks and how many sats we want to retain, jointly.