Admittedly, this took me a while to parse - I had to keep reminding myself that the vote totals you are showing are the downvotes received not given.
What you are saying
What your list is showing is this:
8% of the people who have taken the time to consider your answer and are motivated enough to spend a point of reputation have found your answers unsatisfactory for some reason. (Note: That means 92% have found what you said to be useful.)
7% have said the same of DVK
2% have said the same of me
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the three of us are responsible for many of the answers on this site - about equal. Because you raised the question, and because I am choosing to answer it, I am going to confine my analysis to just User1873 and AffableGeek. I like DVK, and don't want to drag him into this.
Since these votes are coming from the entire audience, we only have a few options:
There is a conspiracy to downvote User1873 and not AffableGeek
There is a qualitative difference between AffableGeek's answers and User1873's.
I will leave it to the other moderators to answer #1 - but suffice it to say, the voting patterns do not support theory #1. And, as Sherlock Holmes would say, when you eliminate the possibilities, the other possibilities, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
The difference between the answers
I do see one qualitative difference between your answers and mine - and I think even you alluded to it in a very good question you asked on meta, asking for help in making a NPOV. Were I not drowning in personal business, I would like to have answered you more directly there.
And that, my friend, is the difference. I would suggest you compare my answers with yours, objectively. You do a much better job of bringing in facts and figures, but your tone seems downright hyperbolic. I, on the other hand, am not nearly as thorough in you as documenting my assumptions. Frankly, I should be chastised for that - or at very least, you should be getting more votes - except for this.
(Warning: The following may be seen as tooting my own horn. I apologize in advance, but I really am trying to be helpful here.)
I would argue that if you look at the facts I state, I tend to use more center-of-the-road, verifiable type statistics when I do. I make much less bold claims and assertions. I tend to add very little to the interpretation thereof. And, I go out of my way to be kind to my opponents. I try to be very clear about what's my opinion (and I keep very little of that in there), and very long on more commonly accepted truths. (I'm still wondering why the only vote I received on a Clausewitz quote was negative!) As a preacher, I am exceedingly mindful of the old adage "Weak point, pound pulpit."
Description > Perscription
This stems from my experience at Christianity.SE. The assumption there is that there are some things we aren't going to agree on, and other things we will. We focus less on "truth" than on what is. Put another way, we are descriptive and not perspective. That is what makes us different, and I think better than most religious forums.
Your tone is almost always prescriptive. "We should do X". My tone is almost always descriptive. "People do Y." Prescription alienates people, and causes them to downvote. Description, whether good or bad, tends to illuminate.
I would argue for everybody - from top to bottom - that description in and of itself is what SE does well. Anything less is Quora. Be descriptive and less partisan (and I applaud you for your steps in that direction), and I think you'll see that 8% drop significantly.