The voting mechanism (ironically) doesn't work too well on politics.se, because the questions are more "opinion-based" (in SE parlance) or based on evaluations and hard-to-adjust world-views than the more technical issues on other sites in the network.
People will therefore to some extent vote according to their political beliefs. This can undermine the quality of the answers if the politically inclined voting exceeds the quality-based voting. I realize that "quality" is essentially contested on a political site, but there are some non-political (if not objective) indicators, such as whether the answer addresses the question, whether it is soundly argued, and whether it is appropriately referenced.
The question then is how this can be fixed. I don't believe appeals on meta will help. Appeals to the common ground (everyone wants good answers) are reasonable, but voting is often rather impulsive than reflective; few users read meta; and "trending" questions attract even more opinionated and less informed users from other SE sites.
This leaves much responsibility in the hands of the moderators. Perhaps then politics.se needs more moderator intervention than other SE sites. This includes stricter enforcement of quality standards, e.g.
- regularly pointing out (using boilerplate comments) what the quality standards are
- editing out opinion-based and unnecessarily incisive parts rather than leaving a comment (e.g. anything that violates "be nice")
- lower threshold (compared to other sites) before deleting answers and before moving comments to chat
It might also include tightening the quality standards for example by
- generally requiring references (like on sceptics.se)
- a rephrasing of "be nice" that discourages dismissive tone ("nonsense") or moralistic boo-words ("bleeding heart")
- encouraging answers that discuss multiple perspectives or are explicit about their evaluations or both
Please not that I'm not trying to tell the moderators what their job is (thank you for you time and work!); I'm just submitting some ideas how the slightly disfunctional voting mechanism can be compensated for.