Here's a snapshot of the semi-public site analytics page - you need to be a trusted user for full access. I've taken a snapshot from 21st april 2015 to 21st april 2017. It kind of shows something interesting. On a bad week, we have under 2k downvotes and the worst I've seen is 5k upvotes. Clearly, your statistics are off. (You can probably get the same data for other periods from clever SEDE queries but I'll leave that for someone else. ) On average though, we probably have a better proportion. Once again, I'll leave it to others to crunch the numbers, but the graph makes it pretty clear.
So, the whole premise of this question - that voting is overwhelmingly negative is incorrect. I'd prefer to comment but as voting is anonymous (even mods can't see them outside general trends) this is optional rather than compulsory.
Most SE sites are a balancing act. Good questions attract experts - and sometimes users. While we try to be welcoming - if we have a load of questions that don't quite cut the mustard, we lose the folks who actual generate value.
And while broad policy changes sound very grand, I don't see any detailed, actionable suggestions that balance out those two things. Sometimes we choose to answer or salvage. Sometimes its the downvote. Both approaches have their advantages, but I don't see what policy changes will help.
