I'm not opposed to reducing the number of votes, but I think it's more important to increase the number of "top witnesses" from 21 to something much bigger, like 50 or 100. Part of the problem is that, once elected, 17 people were able to get together in a back room, make, and implement a major decision without any public discussion. (i.e. SF 0.22.2)
By itself, reducing the number of votes per stakeholder isn't going to fix that. If you increase the number of people who would need to be involved in the collusion, it would be much more difficult to sneak a change through without communicating it and gaining consensus from the community.
Yeah, I wonder about that also....
Maybe even 25 would have been enough, and also I think if it weren't such a tiny community it wouldn't have happened. A small group of people who know each other really well, can intimidate a group of others.
They were careful who they invited and who they kicked out.
But I do get your point and it is valid.