The negative score is bad, is not a coincidence that many sites have removed it.
The merit is something that is not equal to the "like" and the demerit is not equal to the "dislike"
If you don't want read a post, skip it or ignore/report the user if the post is bad and if instead you find it useful and well done use the +Merit.
Above all, dislike is easily exploitable by people with many other accounts.
But in the end I agree with you sMerit system maybe needs a little adjustment (more merit sources or reduction by 20-30%,in my opinion, to rank up) now we are in a moment when montly sMerit circulation is ≤ sMerit generated.
The negative score would just need more moderation in need to avoid personal clashes, but I believe in time will bring more quality.
Here is the issue I have: If I am interested in the topic and I want to contribute I usually need to read around 5 to 7
pages of mostly shallow posts. It cant be just skipped in a minute because my post will be shallow, I will not post in line with the discussion.
Why could Reddit system be better here than on Reddit?
Because of the weight of the vote. As I suggested better-ranked members should have more power in voting and that should bring a better voting quality.
For example, it could be the voting system like Steemit, your vote is worth as much as you have merits. Or you can vote that day as much as you have merits. (both negative and positive)