There's no precedent for "pokemon #1" having 150% the usage of "pokemon #2," so it's really not fair to assume "if we ban Scizor something else will have equally high usage." We don't ban "really good pokemon," we nominate suspects based on the Uber criteria and then follow a documented process to ban/unban pokemon. Scizor isn't just going to get banned for having high usage, and unless it's nominated as a suspect it's not going anywhere, although its insane usage is kinda unnerving
I don't remember saying something will have usage equal to Scizor if Scizor goes.
In any event, at the rate you guys are going OU is going to become a sort of UU and people will have to play Ubers to get a dynamic metagame.
Maybe we should just say anything speedy/wPriority that has a base 130 attack and can reliably Swords Dance is Uber and save a lot of time! </hyperbole>
Anyway, it's seems to me that this easy 'democratic' banning of Pokemon is an experiment bound to go awry.
How are you going to create an egalitarian tier of monsters that are all so strikingly different?
Some are going to have an advantage in any configuration/subset you come up with.
So, in my opinion, this complaining about Pokemon that are non-legendary being 'too good' just seems to go against the spirit of the game.
Pardon the political incorrectness, but I find it sissy too! Garchomp/Scizor used Swords Dance? Deal with it!
If you can't, you lose! Don't cry and try to get the game changed in your favour.