Sort:  

Why not calibrate the system to negate that possibility before it ever becomes a real problem?

Because the current system works with the current environment. If the environment changes the system can choose to adapt. That may sound reactionary rather than proactive but it's better to be so when proactively changing for something that may never come would reduce the utility and openness of the blockchain.

[nested reply]

Because the current system works with the current environment. If the environment changes the system can choose to adapt.

Hmm.

Still speculation, but what if the future environment doesn't allow for the necessary adaptions?

I say make it code that no dictators can come into existence, before it's too late, but perhaps I'm too myopic regarding how the system really works and what kind of power SP really provides. I'm envisioning a total take-over of witness positions through sock puppet accounts and, therefore, total control over if/ how the platform adapts.

Am I way out in left field?

I see your point of view a little better now but I still maintain that the way upvoting and downvoting works now is preferable to compromising it for a far-off potential scenario.