Your Proposal is a low budged fix and it could have an effect. I think what people don't get is that the vote is fixed and that splitting combined with a fixed vote makes the split a worse decision even though its the same pool size. It's a social proof and divisibility issue and not really trivial because of the "but its still the same size of the cake" argument.
the problem, in general, is that we deal with complicated issues and people can only like and agree on proposals they understand (even if they are wrong). This is why a DAO needs an unconscious voting. E.g. 90% of Steem-Users leaving is a democratic consensus, but this information wouldn't be reflected in the opinion of the remaining 10%, their opinion/votes would be completely worthless.
Ralph Merkel peer-reviewed by Buterin, Hoskinson and some others wrote a paper about DAOs and how a useful democratic consensus could be implemented. But since Steem organizations are not scientific at all arguing with them is a waste of time.
Hadn't seen your answer at all. Yeah the idea was a small budget fix, especially since there are "more urgent" matters to attend in the mid term. In the long term those things have to be fixed with more scientific and proven solutions though.
I also agree on the DAO issue, but I think it's similar. First of all we get DAO, that's better than not having it, and then we can improve on it.