You're right about the ratio of downvotes compared to abusive upvotes, but so is the disparity in perception. In deed, it takes very few whales to dominate an entire system, and it's not even necessary to hand out many downvotes to create a chilling effect, never mind that the actual function doesn't allow censorship.
What counts is what people think it is, regardless of what it is. The headlines make the mood in a system. So do the reactions of those who are hit by DV, even if they are a minority. You can't rule out that what you (I, everyone) don't see because it doesn't become public in the first place is still there. "Punish one, educate many" is seen as an effective way to bring the silent majority on a desired course.
The problem of abusive upvotes is unsolvable in my eyes. The system gives it, so it is done. I don't see any way to prevent it, not even with downvotes, although they probably influence those who are hit by them in one way or another. To really create an effect, far more downvotes would have to be distributed than is currently done. I think it's a rather unglamorous and unpopular endeavour and from my point of view people don't want to bother with DW unless they do it out of fanatical conviction, revenge or dominance. In very few cases people seem to be relaxed and take it not as a hot potato but as a cool mathematical correction. But you can't sell that, it's too emotionally charged for that.
I agree that a much higher volume of downvotes would present the situation differently overall. People would not focus so much on ideological downvotes, but accept DVs in general as a kind of indispensable means that can be used to.
In my perception, however, it does not happen that downvotes are dealt with in a relaxed way. And in some cases it is indeed necessary to criticise a whale's motive and expose it if necessary. The few who dare to do so deserve support, I think.