They have 63 million / 196 million = 32.1 % of the ADA and, hence, of the voting power in pure vote by ADA.
Already in the non-optimised stake-pool-indirected, electoral college example, they control Pool 4 completely, i.e., 1.0 votes / 2.8 votes = 35.7 % of the total votes.
In the optimised example, they control Pools 2 to 5 completely, i.e., 1.8 votes / 2.8 votes = 64.3 % of the votes. Exactly doubled.
And that does not depend on the toy example, where it is a significant share of the total votes. And it also does not depend on being in the range of 60 million. As long as the whale has enough to find a pool where they can have 50% of the stake, they can always double their influence, even if they have only 2 million.
In a real-world example, a single whale will never have enough to completely control the vote result, but they can still (almost) double their influence, not enough to decide alone, but surely unfair.
The time when the snapshot for determining voting power is taken is known. They just have to make sure to have as close to 50% of the stake in all pools they are delegating to (with hosts of accounts) by that time. The small stakes of retail would need a quite unrealistic coordinated effort to move much just before that deadline.
The only unpleasancy could occur if two whales try to do that on the same pool and compete for getting 50% in it. Since it is unpleasant for both, they could just try to move to pools with no other whales (looking if there were large stake changes in the couple of days prior to the vote deadline).
Yes, and that could be considered good, the correct result.
If you consider it good, seems to depend on the question if the 99 or the 97 contain more whales (and on you being able to identify if there even are whales in there).