I’m in strong agreement with the aim of this proposal.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we can eliminate bad faith behaviour in voting - code is pretty much law in onchain governance and however detailed a solution we design, there will be some way to game it to gain some advantage against the spirit of the design.
As such, I think the exact mechanics as proposed may lead to other (probably smaller, though) negative effects.
In general, tapers, as @alice_und_bob suggests, are the best simple way to reduce negative effects resulting from a new ‘cliff’
However since we are discussing the confirmation period, not the main voting period, the only rights that voters would lose are those that, arguably, it was not envisioned they should be given in the first place.
So, from me, yes let’s, but I would like to see this implemented with steps/ tapers.
Also: norms for voters
and: watch this space for my proposal for squidsway - a framework to reduce information asymmetry and improve the expereince of both voters and proposers.