My "economic majority" phrasing becomes a little confusing here because we must continually ask, "A majority among whom?" A large enough minority with enough difference of opinion from the majority will break away and become the economic majority of a community of people who agree with their values. There are still reasons why each little economic community with varying beliefs about ideal money will not necessarily fork off: size is an advantage, voice can still work if the minority makes convincing arguments, etc.
Here is where I personally think this runs into problems. Again I'll use the gold default as a historical example. Here after FDR defaulted it was perfectly possible for a minority of people to refuse the new fiat system and still transact with each other using the old system (physical gold). The problem was the minority of people (gold bugs) was too small to be effective, they were marginalized and the majority of the world moved on without them.
I don't think the "community of people who agree with their values" will necessarily be large enough, if history is any guide (which I believe it is).
As you stated, bitcoin is a more democratic form of money, where the economic majority have a voice and a small group cannot control the system. This is one of the most beautiful aspects of the system. Additionally any minority of users can always choose to stay on the ledger/path they choose.
Any democratic system of money is far inferior to Bitcoin. It is fundamentally the opposite of that, it is an economic system.
An occurrence of democratic action is seen as a threat to Bitcoin, AKA 51% attack.
Voting is in all cases the supreme failure of an attempt to create quality. Where there is quality, voting is not needed. Voting is for avoiding violent conflict by replacing it with as much as possible with social conflict. It is the use of law against others, and it is for subjugating minorities. We in democratic societies are taught how wonderful it is to have democracy, and it is better than most any other option, but it is also utter crap. I do not wish for a "democratic" system of money and I am very happy that Bitcoin isn't one.
The problem is Bitcoin exists within a system of demographically elected governments (supposedly), and this system will try to impose it's will either on bitcoin or on the population. The easier and more common it is to change bitcoin, the easier it is for a demographically elected government (or any gov) to co-opt bitcoin.
This thread started with a statement that making bitcoin easy to fork often will be a good thing. My argument is be careful what you wish for because it there are powerful forces which will try to change it into something against it's founding principles.
This is why I stated I prefer that bitcoin remains a rules based system as much as possible outside of the influence of man. The more we enable forking to be common, the more that breaks down and the easier it become for governments to push regulation/etc in.