Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.
Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.
Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.
The former is signal, the latter is noise.
Correct. I don't think that they can be compared though. Consider.it let's basically anyone vote regardless of who they are or if they own any Bitcoin. Bitcoinocracy could be considered a decentralized voting platform because one can verify each signature themselves (IIRC), thus the system can't be cheated nor manipulated.
And I think over 51% of hash power is enough to present the major consensus, because that is how bitcoin was designed: With over 51% of hash power, you essentially control the bitcoin network consensus.
A network split remains a network split regardless of how many times you repeat the "51% is consensus" lie.
People will move to the new chain and dump their coins on the old chain to kill it in a few days
Not going to happen with a 51% : 49% split.