I'm not quite sure I feel about this because I agree with the idea that your voting methodology should be your own and should not be influenced by anyone else's ideal standards on voting. And if the presence of the info in your public profile is influencing how you vote to in order to maintain some hypothetical ratio of upvotes-to-downvotes, then it harmful.
However, peer scrutiny is vital to maintaining some aspect of accountability on the voting process.
In the current version of the site, there are a lot of ways you can give back to the community by editing, reviewing, and other moderation tasks and what tasks you can perform is based on your privilege levels, which in turn is based on your reputation, which is based on voting.
So at the core, the single most important way to give back to the site is by voting. Voting is what drives the culture of the site. It provides the basis for reputation (which on its own, is a metric many use to measure themselves), and also provides the foundation for the moderation tasks you can perform.
So in the end, given the importance of voting, there needs to be something to hold users accountable for their use of the foundation of the site.
But because of the anonymous nature of voting, it is the only part of your participation in the site that is not subject to peer review and/or scrutiny. Virtually every other action you take is recorded and monitored, and you are held accountable for those actions. But voting is so anonymous, that even moderators cannot see what you have voted on (although they have tools to help deal with fraudulent voting).
So how would you hold users accountable while maintaining anonymity?
I think that is the reason that information is published. It provides a limited bit of information on how effective a voter you are. But it doesn't provide enough info to really identify what you are voting on, and when you cast up/down votes.
It's a bit misleading since the commitment you make to SO and hanging by the rules reflects the truth: there are more down votes to be given on questions than up votes
Sure, there are a lot of bad quality posts that need downvotes, but if you are only downvoting, that is a sign that either you are actively seeking out bad posts for the purposes of downvoting, or are overly harsh when judging posts. Likewise, if you are only upvoting, you might be overly generous in doling out votes.
The point is not trying to force you to have to actively seek out posts to upvote to meet some hypothetical ratio, but you should be performing both actions (upvoting & downvoting) and as long as you are doing both, it shouldn't matter to anyone what you are voting on.
