The first step of not cutting corners is not ignoring obvious flaws.
If you are adding complexity into a very complex system, in order to govern it, it is very likely that the change will make the system harder to control. So you must have a pretty good certainty that this will give you governance and not destroy it.
Shareholder voting is not that complicated, it's just a simple majority vote weighted by number of shares held. My suggestion is a modest extension of that, to address a specific problem.
Can you come up with specific ways it might fail? I can definitely think of issues that would have to be addressed, but so far all the critical comments in this subthread could apply, unmodified, to thousands of unrelated ideas, rather than just this one.
If corporation governance were simple, we wouldn't see that kind of failure.
> Can you come up with specific ways it might fail?
It's trivially exploitable by the executive team by just behaving in a sustainable way for a while, and then changing it suddenly when every other shareholder is locked-in.
The reason the comments apply to thousands of possible suggestions is that the problems appear on thousands of possible suggestions, and nobody wants to keep writing thousands of comments debunking each bad idea.
Finally, a criticism that is not completely generic conservatism. It's a good point that this would work better for shareholder votes on policy decisions rather than board elections.
Then you immobilize some long term holders with many proposals for them to vote, and after they can't do anything anymore, bribe the employees directly into doing the shortsighted action.
Again, it's an extra bonus to the unethical ones, because they are the only ones that can sell, and will take all the profits from the short lived stock pump.
Do you also have a home-made encryption algorithm you'd like to push?
Cryptography is a well-developed professional field with rigorous peer review. Their products do what they're supposed to almost perfectly, and many people use them.
Perhaps you could point me to an equivalent field for making society better, with a well-developed utopia that lots of people live in today.
If you are adding complexity into a very complex system, in order to govern it, it is very likely that the change will make the system harder to control. So you must have a pretty good certainty that this will give you governance and not destroy it.