I have read a similar question on this meta in regards to users mitigating another users downvote, solely based on believing something shouldn't be a $-1$. I dislike this, since these users are unlikely to believe the question deserves to be $+1$ they merely think it should be equal.
You are not making the question equal
You are giving the user bonus reputation. The amount of rep they lost for the downvote $=2$, the amount of rep gained for the upvote $=5$. I see a bad question and downvote it for showing no research effort at all, e.g. here and someone feels bad for two downvotes, and upvote the question. Now both of our downvotes have been mitigated and it has a net gain of $1$. This upvoters opinion of the questions worth is greater than the opinion of the two downvoters. I don't understand this.
My question is: Is there a better way to handle reputation change of up and down votes? Is there a system that doesn't allow a user to become more trustworthy (which is what reputation is as claimed by the system), based on poor questions that defeat the purpose of the website.