Upon review; it seems your “design flaw” is the mechanism working exactly as intended - decentralizing voting power, and reinforcing the reaffirmation of followees …?
If the super majority execution of proposals with available VP is the concern, it seems like something that could be solved by making the amount of VP required to enact a super majority, relative to the average amount of VP used within each governance proposal (as it’s one of few reliable samples of active voting power, after a reset) across the last, year, for example.
This would also make governance proposals more than a glorified poll, as they’d directly impact the “super majority weight”.
EDIT: Reflecting, I see a flaw with this, but I believe the workaround is arguably beneficial to governance aswell.
Will publish a draft prop on this soon
EDIT 2: Drafted Resolution Proposal