That being said id wager that id have chance to get a response from less then 10% of the "oppinion makers" here on lets say discord

Less than 10% still leaves a lot more than 3.

It is a basic principle of governance that people should not play a deciding role in decisions which are supposed to be based on a fair and objective framework, when they have a personal interest at stake. Even if they were to decide in a completely fair and objective manner, it absolutely opens up the system to attack with claims that they did not. It should come as no surprise that Steem has more than its share of both internal and external detractors and trolls; ignoring even the most obvious and clear conflicts of interest is feeding them ammunition.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of your personal perception of the three, but not everyone has your exact experiences and will necessarily have your perception or level of confidence (and they should not be expected to; even outsiders should be able to see that the process if fair without knowing that much about the individuals). I don't think the question is even close.

We can certainly find more than three reasonable, fair, inclusive, and respected community members, especially if the rest are alternates who step in only in the specific cases of a direct conflict (and this is also useful if one or more of the committee members is temporarily unavailable due to schedule conflicts, illness, personal leave, etc.; with only three the ability of the committee to function if any member is unavailable is greatly impaired). If we can't we should all just sell our Steem and leave because if there are really only three reasonable people left, we're certainly doomed.

We all know steem unfortunately has a class system that goes beyond stake

That's exactly why it is important to make sure that these decisions can't be attacked on the basis of insiders looking after their own direct interests. It benefits everyone to avoid that appearance, and can easily be done.

Getting rid of them due to possible conflict of interest

No one suggested that. My opinion is that they should step aside in individual cases when specific direct conflicts are present. There can be plenty of other cases where there is no such conflict.