You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.

But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.

In general, I agree that a comment usually means more than a vote.

But that's not really the question here - the question here is whether restricting voting because some people vote 'too much' is in any way a reasonable point of view for an instance on the Threadiverse. As Rimu himself pointed out, the primary targets of this are ten 'top' voters, who are hardly going to be placing more comments to 'replace' their lost votes.

Assuming, of course, comments aren't next to be limited, since that's also an 'outsized influence' from a 'small minority'.

but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it.

Again, your commenting far outstrips that of a semi-active user. Perhaps you should be advocating for a comment limit based on the average user as well.

You should probably advocate for a post limit based on the average poster too. Wouldn't want it to be unfair, after all. And posts are MUCH more visible than votes or comments.

I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.

It was geared towards the muzzling of ten 'top' users (10, mind you, is some ~2% of the daily users of Piefed.social to begin with), but under the presumption that their votes are evenly spread out, day-by-day.

In reality, most people aren't on the Fediverse every day - they come in, participate in a discussion or three, and then might not be back for a few days. So it's easy to hit the limit, as it is a daily limit, simply by being active in a discussion.