After submitting an edit a few days ago, I had it approved twice - by other unrelated users and declined once - by the user whose question was being edited. Im my opinion the question-asker should skip over a review of an edit on their own question to prevent bias. I agree that the edit was on the edge of being a minor edit but I through it added value to the question an apparently two other users agreed with me.
Across the whole SE network the OP has the last word. If the OP rejected the edit, no matter how many other users approved it, the edit remains rejected, and is not seen in a good way to try and suggest it again.
If you think the edit is absolutely needed, you can try to speak with the OP in the comments or in chat.
I agree with Federico, that the author has the final say. If you have strong feelings about an edit that you consider should not have been rolled back, it won't harm to flag it for the moderators' attention with a full description of the issue (if you do not want to discuss it in comments/chat).
With that said, if I had reviewed that edit, I would have rejected it with the reason that it doesn't make the post easier to read (I can't find the exact verbatim given to the reviewers at the moment).
I see a cosmetic change (not a correction) to the title in order to change one word in the body (that's the way I see it, maybe it's different from what you intended).
The help center says:
Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it.
As a reviewer, the first thing I look at is the edit remark, in that case it was:
switched a few words around and edited title.
But why? As any active user would have noticed, I'm one of the prolific editors (not counting own posts) on the main site, but before I reached 2,000 rep, I made only one edit suggestion, because in most cases any typo/minor issue can be neglected without adding it to the review queue.