Maybe voting not working is for the better sometimes, so many downvotes have been quite childish lately or are being used when people run out of arguments - i bet a large number of them even go against the rules on voting
From the FAQ:
What should be rated?
[...]rate down posts that are abusive to others, and nothing but ranting or are simply factually incorrect.
I mean, look at this:
He later posted a source for that claim, so it wasn't "factually incorrect"
"rubbish" ... ah yea ... good reasoning.
"we'll see" ... that should be a reply
The "no jokes allowed" rating i got for half jokingly suggesting an age restriction for F1 attendance was imho questionable as well, ironically a general practitioner in Germany suggested to continue hosting football matches with exactly that, an age restriction.
I bet if you'd check who's negatively rating whom you'd see a pattern where it's people who had an argument of some kind on this site resulting in votes which are symptoms of mad online™