I fully share the desire of all the good people of this community to make the rewards system here more representative of the quality, and not the longevity/cronyism of the poster. Ned's latest comments in Korea are very promising. However, the options for rewarding our contributors represent a continuum. At present we are at one end of the spectrum--rewarding longevity, and ignoring quality. Ned's "solution' (one person-one vote) represents the other end of that same spectrum. IMHO, it would be as unworkable as the current situation.
Right now, with all the bots posting and these 3rd-world mail-order bride memberships, one-man/one-vote will STILL result in poor content being unfairly rewarded. What we need is a middle ground--a weighting system that (for example) gives 70+ reputation members 7 times the voting weight of a 10-rep member, 3.5 times that of a 20-rep...and so on. A 60+ reputation member would get 6 times the weight of a 10-rep, 3 times that of a 20-rep, etc. a 50+ rep member would get 5 times the weight of a 10, rep, 2.5 times the weight of a 20-rep, etc. I think you get the idea. This algorithm could, of course be made even more exacting, and the weighting is just an example.
Still, it would be a vast improvement over the current system where someone like Haejin can post an article with average ( or even below average) content and get $500-1000 SBD, whereas an excellent article by a newbie might get nothing, or get his measly $.01 or $.02 "dusted."
The reason the U.S.A. has been so successful (except for the past 40 years, or so) was because our government was a blending of the spectrum of possible leadership/reward structures. We chose the middle path (a republic) between the opposing tyrannies of monarchy and absolute democracy. The Steemit community must do the same.
Egalitarianism and meritocracy must be our watch words as we strive, rightly, to put the best content forward as possible.