Hi Samuel.
When I saw your profile pic and username, I immediately thought, "That's the Australian philosopher ... or the Estonian plumber. One or the other."
Fifty-one, mate. Not bad if I say so myself. :-)
As you may recall, I'm big into Aristotelian Virtue Ethics ... "Virtue is to be found between two extremes of Vice" and all that. As a result, ideological arguments lacking evidence-of-their-assertion, don't sit well. The Political Anarchism that underlies the crypt-world is blocking the implementation of common sense solutions to eminently solvable problems. Implementing common sense Rules of Conduct, designed to minimize cheating and game-rigging, is not tyranny. "No Rulers, No Rules" and "Decentralization" are not cosmic First Principle Truths nor unquestionable axioms ... they're philosophical approaches to organization, nothing more. Once they become religious-like dogmas, and critique of their validity, heretical blasphemy ... you know you've got a problem.
It's been said (I can't remember if it was me or someone else ... remember, 51) that everyone is either a Platonian or an Aristotelian ... that either one holds as the highest form of Truth, ideas ... or, the evidence of our eyes that either confirms or refutes them.
If our noble experiment is to have any chance of developing practical utility, a number of smart people are going to have to haul their asses out the Academy in Central Athens and head for the Lyceum in the suburbs.
I am starting to wonder if DPOS isn’t all its cracked up to be.
There is nothing new under the sun.
During the Constitutional Convention following the American Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers faced a conundrum that almost derailed the entire endeavor (the process was ultimately saved by the undisputed assumption that the British would return to unleash some whoopass ... and, MASSIVE amounts of booze ... a conflict-resolution strategy at least worth considering). The issue: How ought representation in the legislative branch, Congress, be apportioned?
States with large citizenries argued that it ought to be on the basis of population, one man, one vote ... the bedrock principle underlying the very concept of democracy (and which proportionately reflects the interests of the governed). States with smaller citizenries countered that such a mechanism would immediately render them impotent as they would be dominated by their more populace neighbors ... and that this could create very practical problems - residents of Georgia don't struggle with snowstorms like New Yorkers, but they do have to deal with hurricanes. Hence, you need lawmakers that understand both.
The compromise - break up the Legislative Branch into two chambers: The House of Representatives whose members would reflect population size; and, a Senate with each state being able to elect two Senators. Perfect ... no, workable ... yes.
In modern corporations, governance is stake-weighted (analogous to the House) ... but there are "Minority Shareholder Laws" which limit the 'potentially abusive' powers of the majority (analogous to the Senate).
I discussed implementing elements of such a "hybrid power structure" in my proposed Steemit reforms. If you're interested, there are multiple articles but all hyperlink to this one [as you will see, the idea of "Law" and "Law Enforcement" is not universally loved ... and, my arguing in their favor, makes me a communist, a fascist, a dictator and ... a loser. :-) ]:
Quill