Minor edit to undo downvote. This doesn't cover all cases (no upvote) but encouraging editing is good (no downvote)
edit to undo accidental downvote
not a feature, and minor edit so I can upvote instead of downvote
fixed small error (down-vote -> up-vote)
Fixed naming (but basically a dummy edit to allow me to revoke my earlier downvote)
updated due to new information, and also so I can remove my downvote!
Edited to allow me to cast my upvote
I did intend to upvote this post too.
Changing my vote
no-op edit so downvote can be reversed
no-op edit so that I can change my vote since there is an SE now...
Urgent need to change my vote ;-)
mostly editing to remove my downvote; see comments
tiny edit mainly so I can re-upvote (I accidentally removed my vote after the last edit)
Edited to change a miscast vote.
Edit so I can downvote it.
Is this acceptable behavior? Even if I have edit privileges on a Stack Exchange site, shouldn't my vote be locked in until someone else edits a post? If not, what's the point of locking votes in the first place if anyone with edit privileges can get around that "restriction" anyway?
I think it can be valid, and therefore justifies allowing users the option.
Take for example clarification in comments. Sometimes a response given in comments can change a person's perspective, causing them to want to change their vote. Usually the comments can (and should!) be incorporated into the question/answer, but not always. In those cases, editing to allow the vote to change seems perfectly valid to me.
It seems to me that the system currently has some great checks and balances in the form of both the reputation system as well as the visibility provided by the revision history:
User's must reach a certain rep threshold before being able to edit posts. The user would have to wait for the edit to be approved before changing the vote. If it's a vote they really want to change, then they can keep watching the post and wait for the edit to be approved. This would reduce abuse while still giving low-rep users the ability to change votes.
Higher rep users are more trusted in the community. Therefore, I'd like to think that the chances of a high rep user abusing the system is reduced. Additionally, as was already pointed out, there is no anonymity in edits, so this should reduce the chances of tactical down-voting or abuse of the system. Not only can moderators see this information, but also other users can see the revision history to help keep things in check.
To me, this doesn't appear to be causing any problems; therefore, considering that every feature involves development and maintenance costs, I'd prefer to see the StackExchange developers continue to work on other, more pressing issues.
I don't think this is an issue. I do this all the time to reverse downvotes and upvotes I give because:
I misunderstood the question or the answer and upon further reflection I want to change my vote.
The post was ninja edited (ie: within the 5 minute edit window) and my vote is now "wrong," but I can't reverse it.
If "votes were be locked until someone else edits the post" this would make it that much harder for me to correct votes in these cases. So I strongly disagree with this change.
Since the real reason why votes are locked in the first place is to counter tactical downvoting, having any edit unlock a vote is fine by me. If someone does tactically downvote and reverses it with an edit, it will be very obvious.
Should we allow edits to reverse upvotes and downvotes?