"However defeating the proposal by a 25.1% "no" vote is IMO another form of "squeek"."
An apathetic electorate make a mockery out of democracy dont they.
Everyone who joined the club, joined it as it is now. So you could argue that everyone who doesnt vote to change the club is in effect saying "Leave it as it is".
For proper democracy it should be required to get over 50% of the MEMBERSHIP not just voters. If that was the case they just would never get the turn out unless it was threatening them with instant financial loss.
So allowing for voter apathy, 75% of those who vote looks like a decent hurdle to jump.
It isnt a perfect guarantee against a minority pulling a fast one but now we have proxy votes it seems like meeting that condition will give them a mandate for change. Unless they resort to even more "unfair" tricks.
If I was writing the rule book it would have been 75% of the vote with the additional proviso that the number voting exceeded say 40% of the membership.
Which still means a minority of 30% could get their way, IN THEORY.
You are quite right that whichever way the vote goes it will probably not be a majority decision. Unless there is a crafty way of getting people to sign their proxy to the Chairman by default, without them having done anything towards it.
On the other hand if there are three people saying yes for each no, I will accept that I have been mixing with an unrepresentative slice of the membership. Which is quite common out here in West Wales. (If we meet ANYONE