We've talked a lot about closure lately, but at the end of the day, active voting is the most important assumption behind how the Stack Exchange network works. SE sites breathe votes and reputation: Good questions and answers are supposed to be upvoted, while poor questions and answers are supposed to be downvoted, closed, or deleted. A healthy SE site has a healthy "voting economy."
What's our voting economy like?
Here on CogSci, I've noticed that we tend to have a fairly flat distribution of positive votes, and that we are rather conservative about downvotes. The last time a question hit a very high score (20+) was in 2013. In all of 2014, only 14 answers earned 10 or more upvotes and 9 answers earned -3 or more downvotes (the level at which they become greyed out). In the nearly four months of 2015, only 4 answers have earned 10 or more votes, and only 9 answers have earned -3 or more downvotes.
Of course, this isn't and isn't supposed to be hard evidence of the problem I propose, but I think it's enough to start a discussion about CogSci voting. We may not have that many users, but we don't have that few, either!
Do we have this distribution because we simply have very few voting users, or our voting users don't vote, or they vote within a relatively narrow set of categories? I feel like good questions and answers should be hitting 10 votes (Bronze "Nice Question" / "Nice Answer" badges) quickly and regularly, as should bad answers should hit -3 (greyed out), but my impression is that few do in practice.
How and how often do you vote?