And that was based on how you interpreted either the white or blue paper

Not especially, but I might have referenced it. Most of what I say is based on my own thought process. If I didn't think the white paper made sense I would say so, and have.

This is especially the case when one to three actors can null the will of hundreds of stakeholders

Oh it works the same way for upvotes and nobody (mostly) complains. Hundreds of stakeholdres might see something and decide it is crap, and then one or two whales decide to upvote it. In MOST cases being discussed, the bulk of the rewards being offset by downvotes come from a small number of large upvotes too. It's a stake weighted system, both on the upside and downside. The people with the investment (and getting inflated) get to decide where the rewards go and don't go, according to the size of their investment (and cost of being inflated).

One more thing. If smaller stakeholders wanted to have more influence, one way to do that is to start downvoting more. When you don't use your downvotes, you are taking 20% of your influence over where rewards go and throwing it in the trash. The main reason there are only a small number of downvotes in most cases is because they don't.