I think it's pretty critical information if there's a collective group of dissenting views on measurable outcomes that correlate with downvotes.
It means they're almost certainly beliefs drawn from a convenient collection of wedge issues used to fight for votes in difficult voting districts (e.g. Battleground States but can be more localized or Federal) in the U.S.
Otherwise you'd expect people to complain that their pet theory of gravity is getting downvotes, or that their pet theory of which editor is better was downvoted. But no, it's collectively the ideas propagated as the major planks of party politics and used to shoehorn voters by district into the cohorts needed to maximize the chances for winning seats for particular party candidates. Individually truth-seeking people don't naturally gravitate towards whole sets of beliefs that just end up mutually incompatible with the set of beliefs of the other half of the country; it requires nudges in specific directions to achieve that. Large groups of people also don't collectively go off into falsehood-seeking together; again it takes specific nudges to achieve the perception that literally the other half of the country is intentionally deluding themselves.
This is a generic argument: imagine if your preferred political party was firmly established at your county, state, and federal level. How much would you really care or feel the need to argue for these most-downvoted dissenting views? Would they take lower precedence to practical things like, say, infrastructure and healthcare and small businesses (both parties love those) and R&D? Would the news cycle fixate on them to the point that they kept coming up for discussion on HN?
The parties don't even care which issues they own so long as they can wield them. Witness the flip-flop of territory (plank and physical land) between Democrats and Republicans beginning in the 1950s with civil rights. They will individually tend toward roughly compatible planks but it's by no means guaranteed. Also, unfortunately, it means that one party is almost guaranteed to drift out of the facts zone and into some weird twilight ideology zone over time; they have to keep the planks in place for utilitarian means (winning elections) so long as they are still effective even if it means actively reinforcing beliefs that are pretty obviously and objectively wrong, while the opposing party can double down on science where needed (but, still, certainly not required or even desired; better to have the flexibility to move back toward ideology if necessary).