So we should market the type of people that would participate in the democracy, and participate in a way that would keep the system strong.
Wouldn’t it make sense to stack the system with people who will be healthy for the system? We can do this via appropriate marketing.
Possibly the funniest movie ever made.
Guys, I’m impressed with the number of responses. It could take some time for me to catch up, mentally digest everything and get back into the discussion.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments so far!
Oh, I don’t think that it’s “a bit more power”. The first four addresses contain 20% of all ADA!
I don’t believe so. It only says he invested more money. An African farmer who owns 100 ADA can be more educated about Cardano than the son of a millionaire who just plays around with Dad’s money. That might be exaggerated, but I think you know what I mean. The value of ones investment is relative, not absolute.
I don’t know it it can be automated but if not, I think it IS a big deal to distribute 1 billion ADA to 1000 addresses. Gladly a problem I don’t have… 
Also I think that the big players are honest and could assure that they will not distribute their holdings. And everyone can just proof it. And what would happen if there would be one dishonest whale? Well, not very much. This guy would just get the same voting influence he would have also without any cut for voting. So the danger is quite limited.
I would even expect that Charles would like that idea! 
I really don’t understand the concept why we need leaders where we can delegate our voting to. This whole concept is quite scary to me.
Maybe I’m wrong but the decision-making which pool gets the right to create the next slot is very different for me from democratic decisions where the future development of something depends on.
Cardano must be able to live with all kinds of people, not only the ones you or I or Charles like. See the EU as an example where the “new” Eastern countries have often quite different opinions on some topics than the “old” Central European countries. Who is wrong or right? Everyone has his own historical background for his standpoint and everyone can feel completely right. There is no other chance than discuss and make compromises. Democracy is slow and annoying sometimes but it’s the least dangerous form of decision-making we know. Now, how could we find “the type of people”? There are many different types of people. And I think it’s great that not everyone thinks the same way I do. 
So in order to have a strong, fair, stable operating democracy, it is necessary for those using the system to cooperate with the system.
If there is going to be marketing, we should target the people who will participate for the good of the system.
It’s a pretty basic idea, but an important one for a system in its infancy.
Maybe I missed it in the above conversation. Anyway.
My main points on democracy:
Democracy is directly linked to how we see human beings and their inalienable rights. One human, one vote - we all have the same individual rights. No question may be asked about education, being rich or poor, being an expert or not. We must trust and we must invest in our abilities. For a truly democratic decision in that sense we cannot allow voting based on stakes or anything else but just based on the a unique key which identifies one and only one human being. (The key probably needs to be linked to some biometric data to guarantee that a single living person voted only once. That’s a perfect application for PRISM & Blockchain, to guarantee unicity and privacy.)
Votes on treasury and funding: Maybe we don’t want them to be taken in a democratic way, but the plutocratic way, because we are afraid of a different form of hostile takeover? Well, then stakes decide on voting rights and not the fact that I am a human being, because they guarantee inherently that voters won’t burn the house. But if we take the idea of democracy seriously, stakes cannot be the scale for my voting rights.
Give incentives to participate in the democratic process: Of course ! That may motivate people at different levels to engage and participate. From just delegating their votes … up to becoming a political leader.
Some ideas how to overcome stake-based voting rights:
Now that we are getting closer to Voltaire and the Catalyst project is progressing, this discussion becomes essential. Although I believe that at least for treasury and funding the scene seems to be set for stake-based voting rights.
I would like to vote, and get more involved with projects competing for funds. But I don’t have enough ADA to vote. As a matter of fact, I put a topic questioning what is the underlying principle of the relationship between ADA-wallet and the right to vote (What is the underlying principle regarding the amount of ADA-wallet and the right to vote in Catalyst Funds?) - just because I really don’t understand: Why is a person with 1,000,000 ADA more suitable to vote than a person with 1 ADA …? Perhaps it is for reasons linked to the economic model that structures the Cardano ecosystem, I do not know. I haven’t had an answer yet. It is a pity because the sense of community is somehow lost here. I am not in this universe of crypto-currency as an investor, but rather as curious about blockchain technology, smart contracts and DeFi. The little funds I have on the market are just for trying the applications that are emerging and shaping our way of thinking and doing things.
Well, I just realized that there are $140,000/ADA rewards to be distributed to voters in Catalyst Funds projects. This makes me think of the following: that voting has little of “democracy” when there are rewards at stake (because it distances the concept of democracy from the concept of citizenship); that whoever has more ADA is the one who gets the reward (which is very typical in capitalism); and it’s a strange thing these crypto-ecosystems and sense of community that live off of reward offers - there are rewards for everything everywhere. It reminds me of a zoo where I went as a child and we would give “rewards” to the elephant to see it ring the bell with its trunk. What a weird democracy.
Actually, I deleted my answer because nothing has changed since :
Two years ago …
In fact, I even liked the second version better, more synthetic and objective. But the first version also looks good to me. It’s great that all this pseudo-democracy thing becomes clearer and disappears from the horizon - even so there will always be people who are in the ecosystem believing that the world moves for greater values and not just for money…