A ridiculous suggestion for handling political bias in the upvote/downvote system on Digg beta.

Hi everyone, it’s me. Your favorite Digg user. I’ve been watching how the upvote/downvote mechanics play out when politics creeps in. It’s the same story: left-leaning comments and posts rack up upvotes like they’re going out of style, while anything conservative gets downvoted straight to the basement. It’s not rocket science. It’s just how things work online these days. So I’ve got this half-baked idea that I probably shouldn’t float, but here goes: what if we conservatives started treating downvotes on our stuff as if they were upvotes? The logic being, if a post gets brigaded with downvotes, that just means it struck a raw nerve and deserves to “win” in some alternate scoring system. Their hate becomes our fuel. There is no “hidden comment” system on Digg, so no fear of the prevailing upvoted comments being the only place conversation is happening. While we’re at it, why not push this further during the beta? Conservatives, let’s lean into it: from now on, downvote each other’s comments and posts. Seriously. If we’re all downvoting our own side, it muddies the waters, makes the brigading look even more obvious and under this flipped mindset, piles on the “points” in our imaginary system. If folks on the left want to prove there’s no bias, they’d have to start upvoting conservative takes to counteract the “wins” from downvotes. Counterintuitive as hell, but that’s the point. Let’s see what happens when we force engagement instead of burial. Or they downvote more, and hey, we still “win.” This all just underscores how pointless the up/down vote system is for actual discussion. It doesn’t add value; it just reinforces whatever echo chamber is loudest that day. A thoughtful conservative argument vanishes under the pile, while low-effort snark floats to the top. Digg has a shot at being different. Maybe ditch the votes altogether and prioritize comments using a different system. Surface good ideas without the mob rule.