The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..
It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?
I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.
Well, they are the majority. So let it be.
They're not the majority. That's the point here.
They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more.
Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear).
You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth:
Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them.
NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic.
I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives.
A larger holders vote should have weight proportional to their stake, but they should also pay a proportional fee to their total stake. That could be a significant cost, preventing impulsive, foolish or uneducated voting. It is the stake holders responsibility to vote in a responsible and educated manner. It is those who are pushing the changes (or dissenters) to make sure they are educated on what is being changed and why it is important/needs to be done. I can't see how anything else matters or why all these complicated, gameable voting systems are even being brought up.