Since we've been having a big discussion about so-called "excessive voting" and I figured I would weigh in with a more robust idea that accomplishes the same goal, better and without the need to artificially hinder users who just happen to stumble upon a lot of bad posts: the deviant vote alarm.
Here's my idea: instead of going by absolute, arbitrary ratios, we look at votes on a weighted case-by-case manner: every vote that goes against the grain is a "deviant" vote. The more similar votes a post has, the more "deviance" the counter vote has.
In other words, if a post has ten upvotes, a downvote is deviant. Likewise, if a post has five downvotes, pity upvotes are deviant. The downvote is considered more deviant because it is more against an established norm. Votes for or against mid-ground posts cannot be considered deviant. Deviance is accumulated by users, and dissipates over time. Deviance in an of itself is not a bad thing; rather it's just a measurement of how often a user votes opposite of everyone else. There should be no automated restrictions on actions that create more deviance.
This way, both pity upvotes (against negative-voted posts) and malicious downvotes (against positive-voted posts) are captured and weighed using the same mechanism. Once a user has achieved a certain threshold of vote deviance, he is automatically flagged for a moderator to look into him (the deviant vote alarm). The moderator then uses his discretion to determine if the user is malicious or had legitimate reason for casting so many deviant votes. Singular deviant votes are not enough to trigger the alarm - thresholds need to be set so that false positives aren't commonplace.