This issue was addressed.
Once the new release will be out i'll be able to discuss more about the implemented solution.

In my opinion (and please correct me if i am wrong), the only way one could control the fairness of votes inside a community (company, country, game, etc), is through ways specific to that community only. For example if the organizer of the election can limit the votes to 1 per participant, but make that vot value arbitrary, yet limited(!), that means that they can avoid this situation. An other example would be to limit voters to a set everyone agrees they should vote, so they avoid participants that could sabotage the vote.

These concepts have been extensively discussed and a technical solution has been found. It will be presented in a raw, more technical way in the next release, but it will be improved in the future.

This problem where a voter could sabotage a vote just because he can afford it, was one of my main concerns when joining this team. My concept solution to this is to "tranfer" this problem to the organizer of the poll/ellection/fund and offer him technical ways to do it from within the interface. I thought this so because each individual community knows best how to prevent such things in their own ways already, and VoteCoin should also be usable for crowdfunding where "paying more" is a benefit not an issue (unlike voting).

Presenting all these quite distinct functionalities in a coherent and well integrated way will be our next challenge.