Post History

## Let's weigh the pros and cons.

### Pros

 - **Discourages downvoting without reason** As stated in Olin's answer, people will be less likely to go on a downvoting spree if their name is attached to those downvotes.
 - Uh... we can lynch active downvoters?

### Cons

 - **False accusations of revenge voting.** (whether knowingly or not) That is, stuff like "I know @downvoter doesn't like me, that must be why they downvoted." and "I downvoted @downvoter's post a few days ago, they must be downvoting me because of that"
 - **Actual revenge voting.** I really fail to see how letting people know who downvoted them is supposed to *discourage* downvoting in revenge. At least with private votes, they won't know who to target.
 - **Discourages downvoting.** Most people already don't like giving negative feedback; signing downvotes will only make it harder.
 - **It still doesn't do anything about downvoting without explanation.** The main issue with downvotes is that they aren't very constructive. They say "this post isn't good" without explaining *why* the post isn't good. Showing who downvoted doesn't do anything about this issue, and in fact people might rely on their name instead of an explanation a la "Let my reputation tell people this post is bad instead of explaining why it's bad."
 - **"Heaviness" of certain users' votes.** Expanding on the previous point, if the well-known user A downvotes a post, then the community might be biased to downvote because "A thinks it's bad so it probably is."[^1] The same goes with upvotes; users might be biased to upvote if user A upvotes.

I really did try to think of pros, but... I really can't see any benefit to displaying who voted. It just causes needless drama and reduces the objectivity of upvoting and downvoting.

[^1]: This is also why I don't like the other idea of having two types of downvotes, it does nothing that a well-reasoned comment doesn't do.