Your logic isn't sound.

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Okay. Solved.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.

I thought it was down votes that were the problem.

The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

That can be done now. It's not different.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

It's about quality not quantity. Everyone gets the same 1-10 vote. Everyone gets the opportunity to be passionate or not about all of them.

Yes, the scores will change. A lot. And you will get used to it - like coming from Reddit with no downvote.

And we might see, not just the most popular, but the best of the most popular rise to the top. Maybe.

Or maybe after we all get used to it, the numbers will be different but everything else will be essentially the same.

I really can't see it getting worse. But I can see it getting worse if more people come who aren't high quality - but that's not due to the voting.

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

That's not a proper question.

If I say, "How will adding additional voting NOT make the system more resilient?" - it's the same.

How is resiliency and voting related?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

Flawed logic from a flawed question.