Because in those systems they have a national identity registration system. This is something we cannot implement especially as a privacy coin unless we require KYC. It is very difficult to prove ‘personhood’ even with coins as you can always split them up. This is why asking people to prove that they own a coin to vote is tough. Also with the privacy mechanism, how can you restrict community funds and dev funds from voting if they are anonymized? Again, this suggestion shows a lack of consideration when making them and pushing the responsibility to the core team to ‘figure it out’.
This is why quadratic voting is fairer which is what we are proposing eventually. While it approximates ‘personhood’ via tying to digital identities (social media accounts or forum accounts) it additional imposes other protection because voting has a cost since your donations are your votes. Basically, put your money where your mouth is at.
Sure there are ways to game it but it is much harder since you’ll have to create multiple aged and active forum accounts in additional to donating and also if you have a human committee to oversee this and identify voting patterns which are suspicious (for e.g. a lot of account registrations and people cross post liking just to get trust level up), this is a lot harder to game and discourages this behaviour as well.
To others proposing pure coin voting, might want to read this post I posted as well which references a “successful project” founder, Vitalik on his opinions of the issues with coin voting and the dangers it poses. Coin voting also means someone who entrenches themselves as a large holder of the coin can almost permanently exert influence without easily being untrenched.
Monero’s governance model is actually quite similar to what we have currently where community feedback is solicited and the core team make decisions based off it. This assumes some level of trust in the core team to act for the good of the project and not to ignore the wishes of the community.