The more shares you hold, the greater your voice, when it comes to corporate governance. It's not at all the same as the typical idea of democracy as "one person, one vote".
Would you rather corporate governance be more like a political democracy, where no matter if someone has 30% of the shares or 0.0001%, they get the same vote? Or, perhaps the other way around, you'd like to change a political democracy to:
> limiting who allowed to own shares to people work are directly involved
where suffrage is limited to people who work and contribute to society?
"One person, one vote" is not how the presidency works in the USA.
Beyond that, you seem to trying setup some strawman positions rather than engaging in a discussion about anything anyone actually said.
The only change here is who limiting who allowed to own shares to people work are directly involved.