TLDR
Without reading the whole post you can see what his proposal is. No upvotes or downvotes. You just pick a number so your vote has nothing to do with the current pending payout, and the vote is a much more accurate representation of what the curator wanted for the outcome of the payout for the post.
Click here to read his post that describes how it would work
Problem
As already said in his post, upvotes and downvotes don't really represent what a curator wanted to do. When a curator downvotes a post, they receive a lot of backlash. All the curator really wanted to say was that these rewards could probably benefit a lot more people... But it looks like they're saying the post is not to their liking - and removing the rewards for that reason gets peoples backs up.
Take this example. We have 2 whales who vote on a post. Lets use @blocktrades, @berniesanders and @smooth as examples. (Just to sneak a tag in there ;)
So our dear friend Bernie (who loves me really) sees a post that he likes and it's got no payout and he upvotes it and gives it $50.
Then Blocktrades comes across the same post and votes it up to $100
Then in an effort to redistribute the rewards on the post, Smooth comes along and gives it a downvote. This leads to 20 posts about why everybody hates flags (or smooth) and the community fights about it.
Note:
When Bernie voted that post to $5, he had very little say in how much that post would actually make. He didn't know blocktrades was going to give it $100. It's not likely that he'd sit around waiting to see the end result payout 40+ times a day either. So it's an inaccurate representation. The same goes for smooth. His downvote is an inaccurate representation because he didn't vote on the end result, he just voted up or down based on what the pending payout was at the time he happened to come across the post.
It could have just as easily been smooth to upvote the post, and berniesanders to downvote it if he didn't agree with the amount. Then Bernie would be accused of censorship and here we go again with those 20 posts about why whales are bad and community breakdown.
Solution
If the vote is recorded on the blockchain as an amount then your vote could be a better representation of what the curator wanted for the end result of the payout. Downvotes for redistribution could be avoided if the vote you place on a post could bring the payout up or down as the pending payout fluctuates.
Bernie could start by saying it's worth $5, blocktrades could vote to $100, smooth could vote $20. The median of these 3 amounts is $20 (assuming they all have the same amount of rShares and they are the only people to vote). With lots of other votes in there the payout could end up anywhere. This would possibly force users to get used to seeing their payouts go both up and down without ever seeing a downvote.
Here's the post that describes how it would work
VOTU Witnesses the Witnesses
Tomorrow at
11am PST
1pm CST
2pm EST
7pm GMT