I know what you mean and - believe me (or read the other thread) - my thoughts are also so oriented.
The problem is due to two fundamental properties close to everyone want’s to see in blockchains: decentralization and anonymity.
The first one excludes a centralized organisation like a bank or a national government, who give’s you a unique head-based identity (mainly to have you under perfect control from birth to death with a constant flow of taxes)
And there is a reason why close to all absolutely want to remain anonymous when dealing with blockchains: unlike traditional bank accounts, EVERYONE can see every transaction and value at every time on every (public) blockchain.
Now, this makes it practically impossible to have a one-vote-per-head system. You could try to define whatever minimum stake you want: either it is that high, that many poor people can’t participate, or it is that low, whales can split their stakes into thousands of “virtual heads”.
The good thing is that as long as this concerns only the election of block minters it doesn’t really matter as long as there is not one single or an organized group of very rich stakeholders who can reach more than 50% of all stakes (not very probable, because also very rich people compete with and control each other).
A possible crux is, that a good and well-thought blockchain effectively should also offer a solution for a democratic and decentralized future evolution. Cardano has planned to do so with his treasury system: part of transaction fees go to a treasury. Now developers can propose projects that could become implemented. Stake-holders can vote with their staking-weight and top-X projects get their funds to deliver (kind of a little ICO)
At this moment rich whales could combine their voting power and push implementation of things like digital tax havens. (so no need for Bermudas, Luxembourg or the Caymans anymore)