I'm not the techy guy, so can only give you my understanding. It might be a bit flawed, but it made sense to me when explained the other day.
All you'd need to do is reduce your percentage to compensate for the new voting power. So if you might want to reduce it to 20% or something like that to basically do the same thing as 100% today.
A post making it absolutely clear would be helpful. Maybe someone made one, but if so I missed it.
I actually like this particular change. As long as folks know how to use it, if someone with some real upvote power only wants to give a few folks strong votes on a given day, they can give five people several times more power than today. Kinda cool, IMO.

If you keep voting the same, at 100%, then your voting will not recover as quickly. I suppose it'll average out eventually so that it's similar anyway.
Obviously I'm not tech support. I think I understand the gist of it though. I hope that helps. :)

Please keep going Leah, Im having a party over this :)

Actually, you will. You might be able to give that many people more. It's just that if you go over a certain amount, it'll take longer to recover. If you're only doing about 14 or so a day though, you'll probably find that they'll all get a little more than they would today. You'll just never get back to 100% (which will be much stronger than it is today).

By the way, your ex husband agreed to the interview, no wonder

There is nothing impossible or even difficult to adjust your voting power. Just do it.

@stellabelle: The way I see the change is like this:
Today you vote at 100% and an upvote i (s worth 1.39$ and consumes a certain amount of VP (Voting Power) in a manner that 40 upvotes (the recommended upvotes/day)  at 100% brings the VP to 80%. VP recovers back to 100% in 24h.
After the fork, if you vote with 100% the reward will be 8x what it was before, so it will be 11.12$ per upvote. At the same time it will consume 8x more VP, so 5 upvotes (compared to 40 before) will bring you to 80% VP which will recover over the next 24h.
If you would want to keep your upvotes to the current reward rate, at 1.39$, you will only need to adjust the slider to maybe around 13%. If you do that, the VP burning rate will also remain as it is now.

I know there have been many discussions around this, but I also see it as an advantage. You can keep your current voting habit without burning the VP too fast if *you use the slider*. If you really liked a comment/post, you can supersize your vote up to 8x compared to what you can allocate at the moment by voting it at 100%.
All in all, if this indeed gets implemented in the next fork, be careful. I understand you have habit to vote often, if you don't use the voting slider to decrease the VP used, you will burn through your VP very quickly.
-----------------
Edit: following sigmajin's comment below and re-reading his last post there are some things that change what I have said above. After the fork, @stellabelle's vote value does not remain the same if she votes 40times a day and using the slider, it decreases as other whales vote also and their vote has now more power. @sigmajin's post is a bit hard to grasp at first read but the bottomline I see is this:
If @stellabelle and @someotherwhale would vote every day, @stellabelle 40 times/day and @someotherwhale 5 times /day, they would each have an upvote value of 1.39$/upvote if their's SP is the same (and vote at exact times to make VP efficient).
In total, their reward would be: 62.55$ (1.39$ x 45 votes).

After the fork, the vote value at 100% would increase the upvote reward for both @stellabelle and @someotherwhale at 6.255$/upvote but that means that @someotherwhale eats up half of the total reward with his 5 votes and overall @stellabelle offers less reward every time she uses the slider to vote 40 times and as a total, overall.
So after the fork, if @stellabelle is using the voting slider to still vote 40 times within those 20% top Voting Power, her upvote value would be 0.78$ (62.55$ /2 whales /40 votes) as opposed to 1 upvote at 100% would be 6.255 (62.55$ /2 whales /5 votes) .
I hope @sigmajin agrees with this?

In truth, nobody really knows what is going to happen. If everyone used 100% on the slider now, and voted exactly the same way after the fork but reduced the slider to 12.5%, nothing would change (or at most it would be minimal).

However, there may be very significant changes in voting behavior, not everyone uses 100% (I use the minimum 1% quite often for example, and I will be forced into a weight 8x higher), so it all becomes a question of guesswork.

I agree the way this has been pushed out has been very problematic, including the fact that it was falsely labeled as a "bug fix".

>I do NOT want to reduce my voting strength.

You really should adjust your voting strength according to the value of the post or comment you are voting for. That is something that humans should do, it's what separates us from bots. We should value great posts and nice comments differently. They are not equally worthy.

When you upvote nice comments with full power, you are basically allocating as much rewards as you can for people because they said something nice to you. It's great to thank for comments with an upvote, but it's not fair to distribute big sums of money for them. Powerful votes should go to great authors.

I just wrote about this: https://steemit.com/steem/@samupaha/humans-are-better-than-bots-at-valueing-posts

well why would you vote a just a commentat 100 percent, unless of course you really love them and what to make them a gift....why not indeed. But i think the voting slider is a great thing and helps me dose my voting like never before. So once this is truly realized !! Where indeed is the reason for complaining about this clear improvement brought by this new App ?? I think though that it could have been implemented differently as it did just happen over night without much notification to users and the general community. Would have been nicer to have discussed it perhaps more ! this i think is more the troubling part no?

Looking through your link, I really don't see where there's disagreement. Not sure how you could say it's "absolutely" anything.
If your article is accurate, then I said the same thing. Thanks for your article btw, it was helpful and lined up with how it had been explained to me earlier.

Oh, I agree that it's not a bug fix. I'm still not grasping the nuance you're stating.

I have $40 worth of voting power for 24 hours today and I vote 40 times at 100%, each gets a buck.
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?

But after biophil's comment, you seemed to affirm his accuracy - though you didn't expect folks to work that way.
<blockquote>biophil - One thing you left out of your model is the fact that Andy can cast most of his votes at 12.5% slider power, and then now and then cast a mega-vote at 100% power if he wants. This wouldn't change any weekly averages, but he could grab a bunch of influence in spurts. Still, he was almost certainly a lot better off before the change.</blockquote>
Your response
<blockquote>Now a big question is are they going to "dial down" their 100% votes. Given that theyd be acting against their own interest, its hard ot believe they would.</blockquote>
That seemed to click for me. But in your article you stated
<blockquote>To use shennanigator's model, if you could cast 40 100% votes per day worth 10 cents each before the change, after the change you would be able to cast 5 100% votes worth 34 cents after the change.</blockquote>
In this example, the total voting power drops from 400 to 170? Does this point to the inconsistency in the total between now and after the change that I am apparently not grasping?
Don't knock yourself out. What happens will happen. I'm just trying to understand.

Because the total daily reward pool is fixed?

If that's the case, then THAT is what wasn't clicking for me. I was stuck on individual numbers.

Ahhh, finally. Thanks for taking the time. It was the total pool that messed me up. As soon as I saw that part, it all clicked.
So my perspective was certainly too simplistic.
Thanks again.