If you consider the voting that goes on in a shareholders' meeting of a company a democracy then your confusion about my statement is understandable. Although voting would take place at a shareholders' meeting, in my mind, it is not a democracy.
With that understanding PoS is very similar to a shareholders' meeting arrangement. That is those with more stake have a greater say than those with less stake. It is generally understood that in a democracy it is one vote one person.
If the tomfoolery of wallet blocking and blockchain history revisionism, as well as the fork itself, were put to a true democratic vote my feeling is that it would have failed to gain a majority.
Hope that clarifies my position better for you.
What is undemocratic about a shareholder´s meeting arrangement?
The one person one vote rule has also it´s downsides. E.g. the vote of an chronically unemployed person counts the same as the vote of a CEO who e.g. created 1000 jobs and who´s tax payment brings millions for the community. I would not consider this fair either.
Ah, I understand what you mean. Though there were and are many examples of democracy there this principle did/does not hold. And in most of today's democratic countries there are exemptions to this principle. In federal democratic states (USA, Switzerland) regions can be overrepresented, or in the European Union, a citizen of Malta has far overproportional voting weight compared to a German.
I agree.
I also agree that there are some significant problems with Hive's PoS and governance system. I see it as democratic in so far, as every Hivean can (according to his Hive power) (up)vote other Hiveans' content. Everybody has a vote. And - as opposite to dictatorships - nobody is forced to take part in Hive.
Your points are well taken.