So why didn't the fork happen when misterdelegation started delegating steem power, even though that stake was never to be using the reward pool?
Face it, there was no terms with this stake, there was only empty promises, which could have been handled in good faith by declining voting rights.
Because some people foolishly believed in Ned's good faith as a founder, bought into his continuous stream of empty promises, and others frankly were benefiting from the delegations and preferred to take the route of self-enrichment. That's a pattern that has played out over and over, but it doesn't mean that taking firm action to stop the misuse of the stake and general screwing over of the stakeholders and community at various different junctures wouldn't have been the right decision then, nor that it isn't now.
Now the same people who didn't have the foresight to enforce this "social contract" regarding steemit inc stake are making a seemingly emotional decision based on what might happen. I for one hold the people who have allowed the situation to get here more culpable than something that may happen because a questionable character bought @ned's bags.
This is a good question. I guess its because we all knew Ned and people normally like to believe that others are honest and are good. Declining voting rights is absolutely something that's a desirable outcome.