But your picture is not accurate either. You cannot seriously compare the hard-forking mechanism as equivalent to a democratic system. It's an emergency feature, i.e BREAK CONSENSUS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY type of device. By telling people it's a democracy, you're encouraging the entitlement that lay-people should be making design decisions. They should not.
If Bitcoin development got infiltrated by crazies wanting to introduce ID tracking or permanent inflation, sure, break the glass and sound the alarm. And isn't it obvious that people trolling Bitcoin are always going to be claiming that it's time for the emergency split? Be careful what you wish for when promoting Bitcoin hard-forks as a democratic mechanism, that is an abuse of the system.
OMG (facepalm)
the "consensus mechanism" built into bitcoin since day one and your "hard-forking mechanism" are polar opposites.
bitcoin does not have a "hard-forking mechanism" to have a emergency break. people need to code in a node ban list. to break consensus.
no one has proposed a split (hard break). apart from blockstream who say if you dont want dictatorship split to an altcoin.
all other implementations want to USE the CONSENSUS to stick with one chain, with no corporate controlling dictatorship.
please learn consensus
bitcoin development is getting infiltrated by crazies wanting to introduce ID tracking or permanent inflation. its called blockstream.
even you want blockstream to increase the units of measure, then hide the inflation by rebranding how many units of measure constitute a btc.
even you want blockstream to have sidechains into the ID requiring hyperledger that blockstream are making with banks right now.
even you want blockstream to dictate terms of use of bitcoin and subverting anyones ability to vote in or out any blockstream feature.
your very hypocritical.