I don't think you understand the system.  The blockchain is programmed to be a stake based system.  There is no such thing as 1 person one vote here.  You can talk about it, but it will never happen. 

It could also be easily gamed, if you remember when Haejin joined he brought a bunch of level 25 minnow accounts on board that didn't power up, but rather ran around and trolled.  Surely you wouldn't want that type of person having equal stake and voice as those of us who might disagree, but are committed to the site and the community.

I probably could, but the sample is too small... I know you can't really specify exactly what the right sample size would be in order to eliminate as much error as possible from the results, but at the same time, it might be accurate to do a poll with at least a 10% of the active accounts to get a solid idea.

I don't know what the majority thinks, there are a lot of people silent on the issue.  Never confuse the loudest for the majority.

Its rather looking what bots do to the price of steem vs what you gain from delegating to bots.

I don't hold with the quality argument, I think that's a red herring, on two counts, whilst I agree crap content can be promoted, the down vote flag is there if you need it. First count, as others have pointed out there wasn't much quality before bid bots anyway and secondly, look at that what trends on You Tube  by popular likes, is that quality content, I think not. 

You misunderstood my point about the two to three years, it was not about if those accounts were worthy to stand on their own two feet without buying votes but if by the process of using bots enough SP is distributed to allow any of the so called quality content providers to make it on this platform, my argument is that bid bots are providing that mechanism.

If you can come up with an alternative solution to distribute SP more evenly so voting by anyone can provide an incentive for quality to be more prevalent on the platform then I would welcome it with open arms. 

How has Steemit failed? I find that bizarre, the idea was rather than the model we have at the moment where you produce content on Facebook for instance  and Facebook get all of the rewards, instead you are rewarded for that content. But there was nothing in there about that content being good or of value, I would imagine most of all of the stuff on Facebook is pretty drab or crap in most peoples opinion.

Early investors were here on speculation, this coin is being used and investors can gain returns via delegation, taking away delegation payments would have a HUGE effect on the platform, this is proof of work, unfortunately not everyone has the time or inclination to do that work. Yes there will be those investors that believe in steem and would stay, but I firmly believe it would decline heavily.

Steemit is going to be the mother of crap content, that is because 95% of what humans produce is crap, there is no way to avoid that fact and no way to produce a system that could embrace everyone and eliminate crap. There is too much energy and time wasted fighting it and debating it, it is best just ignored. 

As a big investor to Steemit I care not for that crap content or the crap accounts, let them grow and increase SP, what I want is those accounts to engage, vote and use Steem, it is from those actions  in which quality content will eventually win out and prosper.