I'm quoting this reply not as a direct response to the poster, but because it illustrates something I struggle to understand. Before I start, please know I'm not in disagreement with either of these points because they're both an issue individually IMO.
Both price increases and overcrowding have a large majority of votes. Logically I wasn't expecting both of these reasons to draw a majority of votes. Almost 2 in 3 voters chose at least one of these two reasons, and given that they're both voted by a majority, there has to be overlap. The part I can't understand is how someone can expect crowds to shrink if prices were reduced. One can't expect crowds to shrink if Disney makes it more affordable considering they're already drawing record crowds. I mean, as a matter of argument you can state that Disney needs to open up new parks/attractions and spread the crowd out more, but that only brings higher prices to pay for the expansion. I'm not saying they shouldn't expand. They absolutely should, but as a business, if you produce a lower value product for an increased price and you still attract record crowds, then there's really no reason to try to improve anything let alone reduce prices.
I'm sincerely asking if I'm missing some other way to reduce crowds and prices at the same time, and still make business sense? Just curious.