My guess is that stake weighted voting is one of the most sybil resistant methods of having a voting economy within a decentralized community where people can be anonymous.
That is to say, it can't be circumvented easily by just making a lot of accounts. It's a very pragmatic reason on top of incentivizing investors to buy more stake to expand their influence. Otherwise, if all votes were equal, more technically savvy individuals would just try to create thousands, maybe millions of accounts and siphon rewards that way.
Thanks for the response, dude. For what it's worth -- I spent a fair bit of time yesterday reading some posts from yourself and @kevinwong regarding the EIP changes, and I think I have a better understanding of the intended effect of the proposal -- so thanks for all the thought that you both seem to have put into the proposal.
That being said -- I would imagine there still has to be a way to leverage some sort of defense against sybil attacks and allow for a 1-account-1-vote system -- especially if there's a legitimate fee associated w/ creating a new account (rather than free accounts via RC's), making it difficult (or at least prohibitively expensive) to create hundreds / thousands / millions of accounts. I know everyone reels at the idea of a blacklist as "censorship", but certainly there's a time and place for allowing communities to protect themselves from bad actors, no?
Regardless -- it's neither here nor there right now, and I don't anticipate it to be anywhere anytime soon, as it seems like an exercise in convincing large stakeholders to release a portion of the large advantage they have over rewarding themselves.
Cheers!