This seems like a more sensible rule. With $2000 some nutjob can go into a meeting and disrupt the whole thing because its the rules. If someone wants to have a say in a company, they should some buy-in that is more than 1/1,000,000th of the market cap. Imagine your neighbor who watered your lawn once coming to your house during Thanksgiving Dinner to protest eating turkey. CNN once again stumbles, not realizing most "small investors" are invested in index funds. This is just crybullying from small fries.
Should 400 million serve the top 1000 or should a country and society be organized to benefit the largest possible majority? I guess you need to answer this fundamental question first. Should a civil servant SERVE or take advantage of his position of privilege? It's a very basic yet important question a society has to settle before anything else. Does a society want to worship democracy or feudalism?
A company has the choice to remain private with only accredited investors or access the significantly larger public markets. It's completely disingenuous to demand access to those public markets and restrict the right of your small shareholders simply because they're small. If you want the money that public markets bring you have to allow the public who provides that money a say....that's completely reasonable. You can't hack that, then don't take their money and stay (or return) private.
You bring up a good point, but what happens when a company decides to make drastic shareholder compensation changes or liability payouts? What if in that case, the sum of small investors who may make up a significant voting Bloc get no say?