It seems to me that down-voting is the one process in Stack Overflow that is not really subject to review. While many would argue that the current methods for managing down-votes are adequate, I do not feel that they competently ensure a checks-and-balances approach to the use of down-votes. The following arguments summarize why I think the current down-vote policy is not as effective as what reviewing could provide:
There is no real check against down-voting a question regardless of the whether the down-vote was deserved. Any user can down-vote a post without explanation and without assessment.
The -1 penalty for down-voting an answer may provide incentive to not recklessly down-vote, but having a reviewer apply a penalty for a unjust down-vote would seem far more appropriate. Additionally, this would allow answers that are obviously inappropriate to be down-voted without penalty to the reviewer.
While I believe the format of Stack Overflow should not be flippantly changed without due thought, I believe this issue is one of the few areas in which the topic of alternative solutions should at least be addressed. I know reviewing down-votes may be a hefty task (as they happen so frequently) but we certainly have the user base to accomplish such a task. What'cha think?