Individuals don't get to just decide they know best.
One could argue that it's just that attitude in that belief that led to Hive splitting off from Steem in the first place. Individuals decided they knew what was best. It's one of the key points of the whole architecture of governance, that individuals decide that they know best what to do with their votes and their stake.
I hope you didn't say the quiet part out loud.
I would argue that only individuals get to decide they know best; organizations shouldn't. Other people shouldn't.
I would absolutely be behind "the network" voting 13 times to reduce the power down period from 13 weeks to zero weeks. This isn't the first time that it's ever been suggested that it be allowed to come to a vote. Not even in the last 13 weeks.
Part of the problem is that there are significant powers who have a lot of stake (pun simultaneously intended and literal meaning alongside) and keeping other people's tokens locked up to artificially elevate the perceived value of their own. Like I said before, it is one of the inherent problems with proof of stake systems; the centralized interests of major stakeholders can utterly swarm out the interests of small stakeholders. Locking up their funds keep small stakeholders from being able to cash out their interests and take them elsewhere, where they may have more alignment with the intentions of the environment.
It was a bad idea at the beginning. It's been a bad idea for years. It continues to be a bad idea.
I don't actually believe that "the network" would decide with governance votes to reduce the power down cycle. There's too much advantage in the Powers That Be in keeping it as it is – or even extending it, which is been discussed more than once.