I kind of agree with @everittdmickey as well though he has 20 years on me. Though I will say you did make me consider some things.
I have been watching how the VIEWS I have on my posts are generally far less than my votes. I can also jump from 5 to 45+ after a single person votes that happens to have a bunch of bots following them.
I've seen people with power down vote articles because they say they don't think that article should get as much payout and they are redistributing the wealth.
Yet some of these people actively participate with bots, and have hordes of bots that follow their votes.
So if you opened an article, and it timed how long you spend on that article before clicking a VOTE button and it actually only counted votes after you had spent a little bit of time on a post that could severely curtail the bot issue.
At first I didn't think your idea sounded too workable. Yet we are in beta though, and this would be an interesting experiment.
Perhaps you could simply leave the vote button inactive (unable to click it) until X amount of time has passed.
This is where what @everittdmickey said comes in though. The attention span of many people is a problem. In addition, how long is sufficient? Should we have it count the words and estimate a time to read it? If we did that I bet we'd quickly see people stop writing any lengthy posts and we'd see short shallow posts become the norm.
It is an interesting conundrum and your idea is an interesting experiment I wouldn't mind being part of.
I am no sure if the simple 'time' is key here. It´s much more the 'attention' paid. So time in combination with an action towards the content. But you are right: the attention span indeed is a problem - or better said challenge.
I am happy having received so many comments in any case - seems like it´s a topic a lot of people are concerned about.