Because there are people that directly control millions of votes in companies and no similar structures in a democracy.

The number of shares is the wrong number to reason about, it's the percentage of control that is interesting. If an individual has 51% (or more) control, the comparison to a democracy is obviously nonsense.

(I used 1000 shares because it feels like a big number of shares but is still an utterly insignificant portion of Ford, which has a bit less than 4 billion shares)

They should do whatever they want to do. My point is that when a situation is futile, they should recognize that it is futile. A protest vote for a board member of a company strikes me as one of the more pointless ways to exercise a right to process.

Unlike a democracy, in the stock market you can pay to have your vote count for more than others'.

Why is this comment down-voted?

In democracy, you can spend money on a PR campaign to sway many millions of votes your way.

And as another commenter noted, once a candidate is in place, lobbyists can pay to get proper legislation passed.

Finally, voting is rigged in any place where voting computers are installed, which appears to be a lot of places. Again, for the right money, you can completely change the course of an election.

Being familiar with the US form of democracy that involves lots of lobbyist money, it would seem.

Democracy doesn't have proxy voting when it's the public voting for representatives.

But that's exactly what a representative is: A delegate you entrust to vote on your behalf.

You probably should. It's why I don't vote. Waste of effort.