Only to disqualify the other one for being "popular".
Justice for OP, who was unfairly disqualified for being popular.
That other user probably got all her referrals through Facebook, which celebrations.com actually allows because they WANT exposure through FB. When the celebrations.com folks saw a bunch of referrals from some "forums.anandtech.com," they said "WTF is this?" and unfairly disqualified OP's wife.
ATOT was "social media" before FB
This is my main problem with the DQ. Its plainly obvious that all entries towards the top of the pile were having multiple votes. Unless this site thinks that they get 5000 views of one cupcake a day...You could watch any of the entries and see that they would get a sudden rush of 100 votes, and then it would sit all day practically not increasing at all, then another batch of 150 votes. This doesn't even factor in drumsticks magic 1300 votes in 30 seconds.
Apparently they agree with me as well because they lowered all the vote totals. This means that they recognized that everyone else was inflating their votes with multiple votes as well. However, we are the only to get DQ'd. If you review this thread I don't think you'll find one case of me telling people to clear their cookies and revote. In fact, I told people in the OP they could vote for WHICHEVER cupcake they wanted to. The closest I can find to something suggesting to vote multiple times was saying "but now you have to vote at least a dozen more times" which was in reference to the voting length, not how many times to vote in a day.
So, like all you are realizing, I guess by that logic if we vote for one of these entries multiple times and post that we did, they should DQ them too.