> So... A post is new, it has one other "zero-rated" answer, post an answer yourself, vote down another answer, you get prime real estate... That smells like a conflict of interest.

Well, one of the reasons downvoting an answer costing one reputation is to prevent the [Slowest Cheater In The East](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/18014/295232) effect. That is Stack Exchange's remedy against what you're describing, and it's working quite well so far.

On the other hand, *upvoting* competing answers is actively encouraged; there's even [a badge for it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/badges/119/sportsmanship).

As for voting on the *question*, I usually vote up any question I've answered<sup>*</sup>. Any question good enough to be answered is good enough to be upvoted. From time to time, you see featured posts on per-site metas with a similar call; [questions get voted on less than answers, in general](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9508/295232). Preventing answerers from voting would be a step in the wrong direction, if you ask me.

<sup>*: unfortunately for you, feature requests and discussions I disagree with are the exception...</sup>