I think there's a pretty good chance this will cost him more votes than it gains him.
Really, the only votes this will get him is from apple fanbois that care more about their favourite brand than wasteful spending.
People who care about spending, or dislike apple (Which while less outspoken I think are still a majority) won't vote for him because of this, I'd think.
And, in Australia, everyone has to vote, unlike the USA where it's optional, which changes the demographics of voters from just the 'politically minded' to 'everyone', which needs to be taken into consideration.

If google gets, say, a million complaints sent through, and facebook does nothing, then the Google can make public "We forwarded a million complaints, and facebook did nothing", which, if timed correctly, probably as facebook makes some "we listen to our users, if 100,000 people ask for something, then we do it" type publicity, google can trot this out... Not saying they would, or should need to, but it's hanging over facebook's head unless they deal with it. Google is just being the 'big backer' for our complaints, thus giving them credibility.
Sure, perhaps there are better things that could be done, but this is surely better than Google doing nothing?

Try thinking as the manufacturers/distributors/developers.
Assume they don't pay, but you do (as you do pay in increased device/software/app costs, anyhows)
You can watch the VP8 video, or you can pay 2 cents per video and watch the almost-indistinguishable quality (although you've heard on /. that it's better) version.
Sure, it's only 2c, but which do you choose?
Assuming you aren't the equivalent of a 'rich bastard' (you can guess which companies the 'rich bastard' represents), which do you choose?

Yeah, cause Walmart failed so badly and hasn't been much competion in the supermarket industry....
Being like Walmart is surely a sign of failure.

(If your post was genuine masked as sarcasm, not just plain sarcasm, then let my post be a sarcastic agreement rather than counter-sarcasm. Or whatever.)

The actual full GearScore mod also polls a players statistics and will tell you how many (up to 5) kills they have on every other raid boss.
So it'll tell you if that specific character has, say, cleared Ulduar, ToGC, ICC, RS 5 times or more in 25man raid setting, and RS 4 tmes, or whatever they've done.
While they could be playing their partner/friends account, it doesn't say, sure.
That they're some top raid leader's love interest who gets consistantly carried is also true, but neither of these is likely, so it's a good indicator, better than them just having a high GS.
Of course, there can still be someone with 1k less GS and no raiding statists showing for that character who has done them on an alt and knows the fights, and can do it in a superior fashion to the first guy, this, also, is unlikely.
GS is good when you don't know anything else about a person. It's profiling, pure and simple. With nothing else to go on, you take the guy for the role with the higher GS, and you're that much more likely to suceed.
But yeah, It'd rock if there was some new mechanic, like, say, 'MVP' ratings.
Every time a raid finishes, everyone in the raid choses the MVP. That affects those players MVP scores in some algorithmic weighting of how many raiders voted for them (it'd have to be at least, say, 1/5th of the raid to carry any weight) and adds to their overall.
Then, you use that in place of GS, I'm all for it. :)

I just deleted my page long reply. Instead I'll just post myself (and whoever else) a reminder/warning:
Don't feed the trolls

They're not built in yet due to time management priorities (feature creep prevention).
I thought GhostCrawler made that pretty clear?