Recently, I have been receiving downvotes on some of my questions and answers without obtaining a clear understanding as to why these downvotes were made. I wanted to propose a short anonymous one-click survey while downvoting a post which may explain the reason behind the downvotes and help in improving the content. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to figure out exactly which aspects must be improved upon.
On Meta, downvotes are often interpreted as not being in favor of a proposal (even though when you hover over the down arrow, it says "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful").
To me, your question is clear and useful. This is the function of meta - to discuss how the main SE Chemistry site works, to check in with the community and, sometimes, to suggest changes to the site.
From the comments, I get the sense that those who read this post and chose to comment don't feel that the suggested feature has a chance of being implemented. Some commenters don't think the feature would be useful, and others caution that this would be a change that would have to be implemented across all SE sites, so it would require a large campaign, and similar campaigns have failed in the past.
I want to use my answer to suggest some possible actions to address the problem you identified without implementing the one-click survey.
To get a general idea about votes (and votes to close) on the site, search this meta site for "downvoting" and "reopen".
Sometimes the OP whose question has been downvoted will post it on meta, asking for feedback (e.g. Please help me understand why asking about an acid-base reaction was down-voted and closed). Often, the comments and answers show consent in how to improve the question. Sometimes, those who reply disagree on the merit of the question, and this should encourage the OP to implement any suggestions to improve the question. Either way, posting on meta will give the question more attention, amplifying the original signal (up and down votes), and giving some context. It helps to take some time to write a meta post, and to try to moderate your emotions, otherwise your meta-post will not be received well (e.g. Why are my questions downvoted for no reason?).
You can also discuss questions in the chat, or discuss voting in the chat. Someone even opened a chat room just to discuss downvoting: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/138453/downvoting
This research (as well as looking at the daily feed) will give you a sense how folks exercise their right to vote anonymously on the SE Chemistry site, and might give you some pointers to write your questions in a way that they are "popular" (or, to say it less cynically, a good fit). The latter part is tricky because very few people vote, and who votes first depends on the time of day (i.e. who is awake and on the site). As such, the votes never reflect a representative sample.
In the end, you're fine if the question attracts the interest of at least one person who can give you the answer, and there is a lot of randomness involved in that as well. On the other hand, the only thing you have to invest for the chance of a good answer is your time, and your willingness to receive feedback that has a certain randomness to it.
This meta post has been an interesting (if poorly timed, personally) opportunity to review this recurring subject.
My thoughts are wandering now in support of the idea that downvotes on new questions should not happen at all. If anything, the downvotes should be on answers, not questions. After all, if I encounter a question on SE, how can I justify voting down? Because it does not interest me? Because it is not useful to me? That makes no sense. If it doesn't then move on, don't offend the person who posted the question. Because it is poorly written, unclear, unfocused, or a duplicate? Then vote to close. In fact any serious flaw should lead to a close vote and any reason to dislike a question should in a sane world lead to ignoring the post altogether.
Ok, I get that the votes are supposed to communicate whether a question is interesting. But downvotes are not required for that. The only other unintended purpose they might serve is communicating that a post is flawed without taking the time to elaborate or vote to close. Drive-by criticism.
Despite my waffling opinion on this matter, I like the site and don't see this feature changing. It is pretty much hardcoded. But hey, I never expected to be having a cogent dialogue with a chatbot in 2023. Crazy things do happen.