



That's just an implementation detail (though a big one).  Here would be some *reasons* to implement voting on answers instead of questions, though, no matter how it ends up being done:

 - An advantage of this is that *other* feature requests that would same the *same* problem in the question.  Alternate solutions to the problems inherent in feature requests are not captured especially efficiently in the present system.

 - Another advantage of this is that the questioner would have to think a little harder about *what* exactly the underlying problem is.  This should cut down on proposals with little backing them up, but the main advantage would probably be the first one again:  generating a wider array of possible solutions.
 - What I would consider the **main advantage** of the new system would be *adding information*.  We could distinguish between voting on *the problem* and *the proposed solution*.  It seems to happen very often that good problems get dragged down by poor proposed solutions, when really those problems should be addressed.

Downvoting could be made free, by the way, for answers, in order to keep those free-flowing.  **Of course, we could also use this opportunity to get away from MSO being so downvote-happy and instead have dissenters propose and vote up competing answers**, which could be made up of other feature requests, other ways of addressing the problem, *and* potentially an answer describing how the problem is not really a problem (if some people think nothing should be done about it).  Inviting a 'negative' (no action) answer for questions about problems (instead of downvotes on what might be decent suggestions) would be nearly equivalent to allowing everyone to see upvote and downvote counts on issues where it would be good to give more visibility to community opinions of proposals.  (A downvote on an answer can get lost in the noise if the majority does the opposite, but an upvote on the opposite answer is more noticeable and informative.)


