In this case, there are about 50 downvotes, to offset which we need atleast 10 followers to use all of their upvotes. Realistically, there have been around ~260 upvotes cast from 116 followers, which gives an average of 2.24 upvotes/follower. So, we need ~23 more followers, just to offset that one person's activity. This means an increase of 19.8% in the number of followers at this point.

@AnnaLear I really can't see which part of this^ is fair.

@AnnaLear I think that A51 requires a sort of poll feature to tackle this. The poll should be a simple yes/no poll as to whether users would like to see a proposal launch or not. The threshold for launching could also include say, ~60% acceptance. This would be a much more constructive way to try to block a proposal than simply voting down anything and everything.

Along with some sane limit to the number of downvotes per proposal, possibly proportional to number of upvotes cast (can be easily gamed, but would still require some constructive effort on the part of the user)

On hovering over the downvote button, the message shown is :

Its not I'd rather not see this proposed site

So, this is not the appropriate way to block a site. If it has in fact become that, then there are major problems with A51 itself

@AshRj This might be a moot point, because clearly there is no intention within the organization to address malicious attempts to fail a proposal. One suggestion would be to write directly to the corporate communications team within StackExchange, asking for their support, or their standpoint on such sabotage.

@AshRj If you really feel that the policy towards downvotes should be changed, I suggest a [discussion] (or a "poll" [feature-request]) on Meta Stack Overflow

@Manishearth From what I have seen in A51 meta as well on MSO, because of the overall changes planned for A51 (whenever they may be released) there is no interest in making any (radical) changes to the existing platform. So, a discussion won't really bring about anything.

@AshRj There's a fine semantic line there. "I'd rather not see this question on the proposed site (because I'd rather see it on another site)" <-- would be one possible interpretation.

@AshRj Yeah, there's an unfortunate trade-off right now. We don't want people to be able to push proposals through by just upvoting everything, which is why we have limits on the upvotes.

I understand that this looks frustrating, but trust me - this is entirely an uncommon edge case. One person can't do irreparable damage. A single downvote per question isn't going to bring the whole proposal down.