Pretty sure it goes like this 75% of shares have to agree i.e 1...

Pretty sure it goes like this 75% of shares have to agree i.e 1 share = 1 vote (1 person could have up to ???????? votes) all votes that aren't voted i.e people that don't vote, those votes go to the chairman of the meeting so realistically if you have something like 50% yes voters 30% non voters then that would pass the threshold of a yes vote. On the other hand if you have 25.01% of outstanding shares voting no then the merger is automatically blocked.

Part two is all that of all the people that do vote, half of them or 50.01% or more have to vote in favor or against. Realistically trying to get, lets say half of the 8000+ people that will vote, to vote no is unlikely...

25.01% of shares voting to block the merger is much more likely, since shareholders holding more are more likely to vote no, as they have more at stake and are more inclined to want a better deal, than the one currently being offered.

There is no point trying to win a numbers game with the 50% vote, it's much easier for institutions and the general public with large stakes to just vote to block instead of trying to win over individuals or making a campaign for the 50% vote.

In general, most M/A and things like that are blocked by that 25.01% stake, as you can evidently see with SLR holding a 11.7% blocking stake in Red. (SLR would only hold 1 vote for the 50% side of things which can obviously be fixed by throwing out subsidiaries and splitting holdings to other accounts to fix the vote on the other side to meet the 50% of voters, just as some voters above have 3 votes... For a larger company to push through a vote like this with the 50% side it would be easy, you can split one large parcel into how many holders? with a minimum holding of $500 with just 8 million you can "create" 16000 voters to vote yes or no... Whether or not this is legal? I'm not sure about the legality of it but it's definitely plausible and easy enough to do)