Seeing a post voted +10 doesn't tell the full story. The votes could be split:
- +10/-0, signaling a good post
- +35/-25, signaling an awful post
Lots of downvotes on a positive-scoring post might indicate a wrong answer, a poor but popular question, or a controversial meta opinion. A reader should be warned of these even if they don't compulsively click vote counts to check the split or lack the 1000-rep privilege to do so.
So, I propose showing the number of upvotes and downvotes to all users, including those not logged in, by default without needing a click.
Votes up don't cancel votes down, both in meaning and in rep. They only cancel in that the votes sort order treats them that way, though alternatives have been suggested. The net score is a poor statistic to show because it conflates two attributes:
- Quality, as suggested by the relative ratio of upvotes and downvotes
- Visibility, as suggested by the total number of votes
These can be quite different, as witnessed by the Fastest Gun in the West problem and Hot Network Question voting trends.
There have been many discussions about removing or lowering the privilege to view vote counts on click (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I question though why the counts are hidden behind a click in the first place. Answer from many years ago mention a performance cost (1, 2) – is this really still a limitation?