Maybe it does.

If someone wants to make their decision based on whether a witness is engaged with the community and not so busy that they can get involved in this sort of thing, that's entirely up to them. That's the advantage of them possessing their own vote.

My personal position is that there are plenty of other good reasons that we should be hesitant to offer our vote to a good number of people who are already witnesses – but how would we know?

In most power delegation systems that pretend to be democratic, it's generally in the interests of those who would represent the populace to make their positions known, to be public figures, to continually prove themselves worthy of that vote. The vote must be regularly and frequently recast, representing the continuing trust and belief in those representatives who wield real power over those who are doing the voting. There is no assumption that once cast, the vote is forever. Most notionally democratic organizations don't really "vest" (ironic phrasing) significantly more power in the hands of those who have been most successful in earning a buck – at least not transparently.

In political science circles, that's called an oligarchy. (Technically a plutarchy, but why split hairs?)

Is that what the witnesses intend the method of governance to be and continue to be on the STEEM blockchain?

That in itself seems like it would be an important question to have answers to. It would certainly let many of us who are unlikely to be able to buy our way into the aristocracy know what to expect from those who already have seats at the head of the line.

But I reiterate, how would we know? Unless we ask – unless someone asks – there is no magical way for us to know, and when you simultaneously put the burden of finding out on the community rather than on the witnesses/oligarchy to inform the community…

That's just a bad combination.

Surely you can see that.