Thanks for elaborating - this here is definitely not bullshit, but valid thoughts which can be productively discussed!

One person = one vote does not exist on the blockchain.

Of course not, and everybody is aware of that. It's technically not possible on a platform where everyone can freely create accounts.

The voting power is in very few hands. I therefore think the claim that voting on Hive has more effect than voting in a democratic election is very unrealistic (to put it gently).

That's not true. Voting power is in everyone's hands - dependend on capital invested into the community.
The tool I created uses, arguably in a very convenient way for the claim, national elections for comparison. In an association, a union, or other smaller democratic political structures a single voter has a lot more influence of course.
But despite the smaller influence of a single vote, it's still important to participate in national elections, most do agree with this. And that was the purpose of the post - even if a user feels powerless due to low HP, it's still important that they use the votes they have, and that it has more influence than in national elections is just a mathematical fact.

I do not agree with the term oligarchs. Real world oligarchs can by no means be challenged in their power, except by other oligarchs. If the small investors don't use their votes, there is a risk of minority rule, yes. But when everyone takes part, it is easy for the majority to overrule the wealthy minority.

The ones following the oligarchs are the technocrats, who can also deprive a true democracy of its stability by simple methods. Having never been elected by anyone, the developers change the basic structures with their updates and forks - but never without taking into account the explicit wishes of the ruling minority (oligarchs).

Core developers themselves only have the power to suggest changes - and this can theoretically be done by everyone. A fork only happens, when the majority of the elected representatives (witnesses) agree. If this decision is effectively made exclusively by the big investors again depends on the activity of the smaller ones.

Should smart contract errors occur or the platform be hacked, all that remains is for each participant to reach for their handkerchief and shed a few tears over the total loss.

Who loses most if that happens, big or small investors? Someone who holds 100 Hive might not even shed those tears - someone holding 5000000 Hive might face much more dire consequences than having to pick up a handkerchief.

So, of course you're not all wrong. In the end, a system that requires an investment can not be a grassroots democracy in the political sense. It would be very unwise to let people who do not need to care about the success of Hive make decisions about its direction.
It could be compared to a stock corporation - but without the institutional investors and insiders holding an absolute majority of votes.

But that wasn't what my post was about. It was only meant to show that small fish here have way more influence than they generally think and are told they would have - and that includes this post of yours.