This post is simply evidence among other things that someone voting or not voting doesn’t entirely indicate their intention of support. And further evidence that decentralization is a grander issue than vote or no vote. People vote for a variety of reasons, not only to support something. Now because I vote for one reason only, doesn’t mean that I will conclude that a large expanse of people from all walks of life, must have voted for that same reason. While people may hurriedly say that ah, most people are here for rewards for instance, well, people, to gain insight in to the true state of the world (steem as cctv) or to sandbox a dream.

People can vote or not vote or interchange vote over the course of time to weigh matters and perhaps give room for decentralization to ensue. It can’t be concluded that people only vote to support something. Same as for instance, you ‘would stay on steem to support the chain’ in this case, will not have enough context (just courtesy of you having ran 22.1) without your post explanation here. meaning that I can’t be conclusive as to your intentions for staying on steem solely because you have chosen to run 22.1. And well, even if you didn’t explain in a post your decision and just ran 22.1, who will I have been to say that your decision is poor or right.

If there was perhaps a voting system and a small poll posed to ‘gather intention’ (which is easier to automately measure than say a small box where people needed to state their intention), then perhaps that gives a more factual basis for a more decentralized decision-making than recount votes or who doesn’t as a measure of support or otherwise. Vote by itself may not entirely carry intention, reason why in some cases people come out with an entire post for context sake, be it a witness vote or even a post vote (in many cases, downvotes). I for instance vote for many other reasons besides reward-distribution or content-visibility or to display support for something. I could vote to stir a stimuli to get unadulterated feedback or vote provisionally to weigh matters or not vote or interchange vote cos I am trying to fix the real life, one could vote to play with the button or see how blockchain reacts etc.

Amongst other things, people voting Sun directly or indirectly (in some cases through a proxy decision) doesn’t necessarily mean that they support centralization, they can have voted for a variety of other reasons; it could also mean that they want to exercise a right at the very least, which is where a grand meaning of decentralization comes in.

Altogether, votes alone isn’t parameter enough for conclusions when it comes giant decision-making involving a large community for it only carries a measure of facts.

Where it is only vote we have, that is where the community at large comes in for discussion sake. That we have a blockchain that offers vote should relegate the role of humans, else the blockchain would have been perfect from the outset. That witnesses have been voted in, shouldn’t relegate discussions. Altogether, discussions are needed for the evolution onto decentralization. A variety of reaction and interaction and a balance or eventually compromise is how decentralization comes about and it takes time. Even for hurried decision-making where the witnesses have to take a leadership, the unheld discussion can still be held even where it results in reverting decision, else it may come up later with more detrimental impact. Vote alone is a very simple action. It can’t by itself form the base for world impacting decisions e.g attaining centralization cos vote by itself can highlight context. Same as a yes can mean no underlying, where there is no way to relate context. Same as one can easily be cajoled into saying ‘a simple yes’ compared to an entire sentence.

Humans should be able to exercises these things at least even if to stir further discussion tangible for the evolution of decentralization and be allowed room to do so. Now their decision-making and mentality on a subject could change over the course of time, which is proven on steem (many arrived on steem and adjusted their decision or mentality on a subject courtesy of the beauty of steem). A decision today may not be same tomorrow and that is where the beauty of blockchain comes in, not as a small god-code to curb humans, but as a tool to play out a curriculum that adjusts mentality. Many of these things should be discussable. People shouldn’t entertain fears of discussing these things, cos these discussions and measure of freedom to react or interact is what leads on to decentralization. Decentralization isn’t a very old concept, people need to grow into it and be given room to do so. Even where witnesses are elected, doesn’t relegate the role of the community at large in these discussions, cos votes isn’t an entire indication of support. Vote in itself can mean many things.

Altogether, humans who have steem are to a measure of extent or even to a large extent according to me, community members. I am not one to bash anyone for having a say.