Really that's capitalism. Your assumption may also be invalid as many of those 75 shareholders represent large SUPER funds which have hundred thousand to million members. So you think that because they are represented by one entity they have to be controlled by those that represent themselves.
Really not sure how you can think it's fair that the top say 100 hold the majority of the shares but should be dictated to because there are more smaller shareholders.
What you are proposing is that those that have the most invested and therefore the most to lose need to be dictated by the number of people that hold shares. Really not logical - the argument then is that I come visit your private house and because you have a family of 4 but I bring 4 fpriends we decide what should be done in your home - really it's just illogical.
The second error in your argument is that you appear to make the assumption that because the larger shareholders are such that they are trying to oppress the smaller shareholders. There is no evidence of that in fact it's not a club - these managers are paid for performance as well so they will either sell or will vote against item's they don't agree with including remuneration report. They can and have at times even used s249d to get rid of the directors present. It is a hard ask but so it should be.
Really you appear to give the impression that there are two groups - the larger shareholders who all live in penthouses and stick together and the rest which are smaller minorities who cannot win. That is not evidenced by votes we have seen many companies get the 2 strikes and have changed the board or any changes have or will fail because those that are unhappy are above 25% but not above 50%. What you are suggesting is that we start on the premise of one shareholder one vote and tgat the fatal flaw as one shareholder may represent a much larger body of underlying shareholders plus all shareholders don't own the same number of shares so have very different investments at risk.
However the will of the majority does clearly control a company just that that majority is based upon the holding of investment by way of shares. It's not a perfect system but try a few others and you will soon see why other systems fail.
(20min delay)
