Solid Vote of Confidence

We now see that slightly more than 2 out of 3 shareholders who cared enough to participate actually voted slightly over two thirds of the votes cast in favour of the boards recommendation of the SoA. The fact that the SoA failed has nothing to do with democracy, simply the rules associated with SoA's which require a 75% pass vote. Democracy for good or bad is the situation where the entire country can be governed for 3 years by a crowd with typically 51 or 52% of the overall vote count. With an SoA, the outcome can readily highjacked by a minority core, but thems are the rules. However a 67% vote in favour clearly constitutes a solid vote of confidence in the current board. I would remark also that the address from the Chair following the vote carried an admirably positive message, delivered with a restraint sadly lacking in the postings of the critics.
But where does a modicum of responsibility lie? I imagine the self appointed purveyors of unsolicited and naïve advice ($100m from shadowy Asian and American sources on the basis of an MOU, who is kidding who here????)
will be enjoying the congratulations from the gormless, while ignoring the fact that 67% of the voters have just had a 40% hit to the value of their holdings. Little or no congratulations from those, I suspect.
But at least this vote provides a strong indication that this board will prevail over any various 249D requisitions. In fact, given the strength of this outcome, it would be a public good if said requisitions were withdrawn, so that the stability absolutely essential to the rebuilding of value in any reasonable time frame is delivered.
Too much to hope for?. Given the example of logic and common sense being trumped by fairy tale scenarios and vitriolic tribal warfare, quite probably.