That's not a flaw - that's grassroots democracy. It looks messy because it is. You should worry more about the tidy politicians who seem to just coast silently into first place. Why do they not need to engage with the public or stir up any passion?
I think it's quite possible that in 10 years most of us internet geeks will primarily remember Ron Paul as "that libertarian guy who was always upvoted on social news sites". Unless he wins ;-)
So Reddit should be representative of the tastes of someone who got 1,000 on the SAT, makes 29,000 a year, has 2.1 kids, and is morbidly obese?
That "small group leading" effect is what makes any-to-many media such a ferment of ideas. Suppose you used an algorithm that refused to raise articles with less than mainstream interest. You'd end up duplicating the banality of broadcast TV, which also relies on broad and shallow appeal. There's a reason the slang calls it the "lowest common denominator"!
There's no self-censoring on the net. People post and write just whatever they feel like.
As far as I know, no one thinks voting rings should be a component of "how social networks actually work." And in fact, reddit has software for neutralizing them. It's just not good enough.
Whether it's 500 RP supporters purposely joining reddit or 500 of the existing reddit users who happen to be rabid Paul supporters, it's a distinction without a difference. The rest of us have to put up with the behavior of reddit simply because it has the attribute "all it takes is 500 votes to get a story to the top of the frontpage"
For a long time I was convinced RP supporters were purposely gaming the system. I've changed my mind in the last few months, though, after meeting and talking to some of these folks. They just are really excited, that's all, and they're already reddit, or digg, or whatever users.
Another way to look at it is thus: while it's true that a small number of users constantly "run" large social sites, that's because only a small number of users give a hoot about ranking or rating articles. The rest are just apathetic. But for certain topics, like Ron Paul, or LISP, or Mac vs PC, or tax policy, or weasel juggling, a _new_ set of small users suddenly becomes very energized. The system works as long as everybody is fairly complacent. Once anything starts really motivating people, you get these swings out of whack. That's my view, for what it's worth. Perhaps "voting ring" is one way to characterize them, but I'm not sure it does justice to the situation that's really occurring.
What's interesting is that I've heard this from all sorts of people on reddit! Some of them were talking about Google, some of them were talking about XKCD, some of them were talking about Steve Yegge, and lots of them were talking about you. So a) you're the first person to be right about this phenomenon, b) you just missed it before, or c) this is just how people react when they find out that they're suddenly in a minority within their peer group.
I'm talking about acceleration here, not velocity.
Social sites are tyrannies of the vocal minorities (as is democracy, for that matter, but that's a longer rant). The whole idea of voting something up or down is a flawed _concept_. "Up" and "Down" have various and sundry meanings, and people are emotional animals, not rational ones. No amount of algorithm tweaking is going to make a bad concept into a good one.
Having said all of that, I felt like the game was rigged for RP too for a while. Now I've come to understand that social voting is a mob-like affair, and does not have the best interests of the reader in mind. If there was one thing I could fix in the world, that would be it. There's simply too much time being wasted by all kinds of smart people reading stuff that has no value to them. (whatever the topic) </rant>
Is that a conspiracy? I don't know. Is it ideologically biased? I think so.
I hope you realize that your idea of hacker opinion is likely slanted. It seems like you spend your time in either San Fransisco or Cambridge, two incredibly democratic locations. Of course you're going to hear people bash Bush incredibly passionately. Nobody likes Bush, not even in red states, so I can only imagine that's amplified where you are.
I can tell you that I sling code for a living and I'm very interested in the whole Ron Paul thing; I didn't hear about him from Digg or Reddit, I heard about him from the signs I see people holding every day on my way home from work so I looked him up on Google.
I think a lot more hackers lean libertarian than you give credit for.
That's a limited view. Some people recognize that voting rings happen, and are considering a way to fix them:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/uberfac...
Of course they must be exchanging information somehow, but it doesn't look to me like anybody in particular is in charge.
However, if they were successful at doing what you describe wouldn't your prediction imply that most Ron Paul stories on Reddit would have a score greater than zero? A search for "Ron Paul" shows this to be false.
Is there some other objective measure that could be used?