But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?
I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again.
The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules.
You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority.
I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation.
Why do you think that the
number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority?
Because if each real user and each real merchant ran a Bitcoin full validating node, it is, because they all validate and enforce the rules. If they did not run one for reasons like "the only nodes that matter are the mining nodes" then what is stopping the miners from changing the rules?
But you are sidestepping my question too. Why do you believe that a higher count of non-mining nodes have no bearing on the network? Would it not centralize all power towards miners if there are no non-mining full nodes?