I am suprised that this question received so many downvotes and attracted condescending, sometimes vituperative comments and answers. I can understand the criticisms of the question, but as a question it is well phrased and is trying to address a significant problem, the lack of upvotes on questions. People seem to be angry because it is not fitting in with the current Stack Exchange way of doing things. Organisations are able to improve more quickly if they are able to consider ideas outside the cannon without shouting them down.
To me the issue is not whether the question fits in with the established way of doing things, but can it help Stack Exchange to find a better, innovative way of doing things.
The Stack Exchange approach is fantastic, and has done much to promote much better Q&A on the internet. To my mind there is a problem with the way reputation is awarded to questions. In particular it does not reward good questions in the sense that that term is used in the wider community. In the wider community a good question is one that provokes new, useful answers. Often the best people to ask good questions are the newcomers, the outsiders, the young. However on stackexchange sites, the goodness of a question is determined by what the insiders think (because it is mainly only experienced users who upvote). However, experienced users are not the most likely to ask good questions, only the most likely to phrase a question in a way that fits in with the rules and ethos of Stack Exchange sites.
So Leo thanks for asking a thought provoking question and how about a few more open minded answers to it?