I'm not twisting your meaning, this is exactly what I'm disagreeing with.
The bans should be there mainly for the game warping champions, and that's it, in my opinion.

There are people who keep asking for bans, and the more bans you'll add the more they'll ask for, even without new champions being released.

And no, the percentage isn't shrinking rapidly with 1 additional champion every two weeks, but this is more of a nit-pick.

I got to play Jayce in DD #30 because the other team didn't ban him =D. Gotta love it when the new teams mostly from SR leave out Kass or Jayce. At least they'll remember to ban them next time!

Perhaps we can think about it when there's 120 champs. I kinda like the 10 bans for 107 champions because that's about 10% of the champs banned.

could just make it 6 chat bans instead of 4

Can you explain why having more targeted bans would be good for competitive play?

From a theory point of view, the only reason for targeted bans, assuming optimal play from both teams, is to ban someone out. This comes directly from the fact that if one player can play a champion at a ban-worthy level, then it is a ban worthy champion, not a targeted ban itself because another similarly skilled player should be able to play it. For example, prior to world championships, an Anivia ban was considered to be a targeted ban against Froggen. Turns out that Anivia is just a really strong, banworthy champion in competitive play, with Anivia being played by 3 of the top four teams, with the other team losing to it. Therefore, we can say that a ban against a player either bans a champ that should be banned against anyone, or bans a suboptimal pick to punish a player with a smaller pool of champions.

I don't think I can support that. If you know someone can only play a couple of champs, that is knowledge you can use to counter them. A small champion pool is handicapping by itself because it limits teamcomps you can run.

Given X number of broken champs that will make games ruined, with the top champ in that list being much better than #2>>#3>>...>>#X, you need 2X bans to prevent banning shenanigans by the team with FP banning midtier champs to secure a pick advantage. If both teams play nice in bans, you will have a couple of simply high tier bans that aren't necessary to the game anyways.

However, the assumption is likely incorrect. More likely, the top picks are somewhat equal in strength once you get out 1 or 2 superduperuber broken ones. This leaves situations where the teams can play the "parity" game where they leave a number of S-tier champs divisible by 2 such that both teams share them equally. In this case you only need X bans because they can split any OPs not banned, and the team who gets the Xth most broken champ instead of the (X-1)th, gets an advantage from getting a situational last pick. In this case, you would still likely get a couple of targeted bans.

Having a lot of bans leads to a couple ends.
1.) Forces players to main more champions or risk getting all bans spent on them and having nothing to play.
2.) Forces play of suboptimal champions.
3.) Forces teams to have incredibly flexible teamcomps (imagine what would happen in SR play if you had enough bans to ban out all supports or all currently viable competitive junglers)
4.) Places more emphasis of game on champ select instead of actual play (I think there is too much of this already)
5.) Larger barrier to entry. Your game knowledge has to be so much higher to play in a huge ban pool situation in addition to owning more champions.

I would like to see community bans. Champions that are banned from both blind and draft match. I think 4 would be a good number.