I realize it is a loose analogy (because Steemit, Inc. does not actually own the Steem blockchain), but in a lot of ways this is essentially a start-up, with the Steem blockchain as the product. @dantheman, @ned, and their chosen crew are basically the founders. The witnesses (and whales) in a lot of ways are the 'chosen' upper management. With this analogy, you are basically asking the founders not to be involved with the decision of who their management team will be.
Where my analogy starts to break down a little more is when you get into voting on content. Here there is less of an argument to be made for the 'company' to care how its users are using the 'product'. I would still argue though that they do have a vested interest in seeing that the community discussions and reward pool are directed in a way that meets their interests, so I also don't think it is totally unreasonable for them to be involved in the voting process.
I’m afraid the extent to which Steemit inc individuals are interfering with the voting system is far beyond the reasonable limit. It might be considered mismanagement in legal terms.
I invite Steemit inc to conduct an independent and professional audit of their management practices in an effort to make things right. This kind of things are very important when it comes to investors’ decision. And could constitute a serious flaw that would for example impede any initial public offering.