I have a complaint about the way the site works: After I've voted on an answer, the site won't let me later change my vote. Sometimes after reading comments and discussion, I change my view of the answer, but the site won't let me change my vote. For instance, it won't let me remove a vote that I later decide (e.g., based upon the comments) was unwarranted or misguided. My reaction is, Huh? Why is the site preventing me from doing that? What is gained? What is the purpose of this restriction? How is this helping make the site more useful to the world?
My feature request is: remove this restriction, and let me change my vote at any time after it is initially cast. Or, if that is considered unacceptable for some reason, let me change my vote if there has been at least one new comment (by someone other than me) since the time that I cast my vote. Or, if that is unacceptable, then let users with at least 2K reputation change their vote (why 2K? because there's currently a hack-ish way 2K-rep users can circumvent the restriction, if they choose, as discussed below, so this change would not open up any new opportunities for gaming).
This sort of request has been widely supported at SO.Meta, but has not been acted on. (See also: 1, 2, 3.) Apparently this restriction was designed to prevent "gaming", but I think it goes overboard in preventing useful behavior. (I don't think "gaming" has been a problem here on ITSecurity, but for those who are concerned about "gaming", see my suggestions above for ways to allow vote changes without introducing gaming.) Moreover, I think there is an argument that ability to change your vote is especially appropriate on ITSecurity: security is subtle, and it is not unusual that someone posts an answer that looks good/bad, and then an insightful comment makes you realize your initial impression was inaccurate.
P.S. I know that I can make a no-op edit to the answer and then change my vote, but that's just silly. It is silly to have to go to those artificial contortions. It also compromises the anonymity of the voter and is only available to those with 2K reputation, of which we have only 28 at the moment. The fact that I can circumvent the policy using the "no-edit edit" workaround suggests that the policy is not actually preventing the behavior it is supposedly prohibits, which further suggests to me that it should be re-thought.