Today there was a question on irrational and rational numbers. An answer was proposed that the author of the question clearly rejected both in a comment explicitly saying 'I can't accept this answer' in addition to not marking the proposed answer as the answer.
The non-accepted answer still gets upvotes, which means the author gets more reputation with each upvote.
Does it make sense that a person who thinks they answered is, rejected by the poster, should still get reputation from others? The only justification for this practice would necessarily rely on an appeal to ignorance, and an appeal to authority.
"The OP obviously doesn't understand the answer, and the answer is obviously the answer because people are upvoting it."
We need an option for authors of questions to reject an answer, stopping any votes. If the post is possibly salvaged, it would have to still rely on the same principles as the original posted answer. This means that a rejection by the OP should nullify future edits from salvaging posts. It would require a new answer be posted. If the new answer is barely different from the now banned answer, it should be flagged as a duplicate, rejected answer.
This is a systemic flaw in both reputation gains, and listening to the people who asks the questions.