i mostly agree. the market does in fact decide what code to run in actuality. if other constants become controversial, i'm sure there would be attempts to change them as well.
Entrenchment is the hallmark of centralized development. Devs cooperating/competing within one repository doesn't really do it for me.
I think perception of 'controlling tyrants' will be inevitable given that structure
There could indeed be some further improvements upon governance within core as there appears to be an informal consensus being made where some developers are able to have a greater say than others(right now mostly because they have a proven record and are the most talented) ... but we could formalize a better governance model certainly that was more consistent.
The difference between a democratic vote on the various implementations and a democratic vote
within an implementation is great however. As the uninformed mob still may choose a conservative approach of picking the team with the most developers and highest experience out of fears of bugs and mistakes being introduced. This is both great in the sense that the best people are working on it and there isn't the most charismatic people voted in instead. Case in point -- Peter Todd is naturally hated by most for his contentious attitude and being obsessively stringent and nitpicky ... these qualities are typically abrasive and make him one of the worst marketing salespeople for bitcoin but one of the best testers, and troubleshooters and the fact that he is brilliant and a prolific coder doesn't hurt either.
consider.it may be good for somethings and I like the Toomin brothers but it is insane using that as a governance model.