In our way of thinking, this change was a rollback of a decision made in 2010. That change didn't adjust the weight of downvotes. We think it did not change people's behavior and the problem it attempted to solve (people spamming the site with meh questions in hopes of getting enough upvotes to make up for downvotes) was better solved with rolling rate limits. In any case, the payout change didn't seem to do much to discourage bad questions.
The basic principle here is we don't intend to remove reputation from anyone because of loss aversion. So downvoting a question will continue to cost nothing, downvoting an answer will cost one reputation point and receiving a downvote on either type of post will continue to cost two reputation.
The way to think of these penalties is that they are tokens rather than true costs. Getting -1 reputation makes you think twice about, say, downvoting other answers to make your answer look better. Getting -2 makes you think twice about posts that tend to garner downvotes. Most people don't do the mental calculation to determine if the risk of downvotes is outweighed by the benefit of upvotes.