So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?
Point of information. The notion of a plebiscite is irrelevant to a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; there is no central authority to enforce the result.
I had to look up "plebiscite". It means "a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal".
Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best. If it's at all close, we'll have a lot of blockchain reorgs as the forks compete with each other, and a lot of mess as previously confirmed transactions become unconfirmed as the forks battle for dominance.
The point of having a probably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess. If one proposal gets a clear majority of the votes, and everyone sees that that is the case, then "we" can make a new official release implementing that most popular proposal and have a good expectation that the majority will switch to running that code. Obviously we can't enforce that result, but since it is by definition the most popular result, we won't have to.
Mr. Higgins is much more qualified to follow up, but IMO the thrust of his post is not "plebiscite", but rather "central authority". Is CLAM decentralized or not? If yes, changes are made via a concensus mechanism. Voters are miners and nodes, not forum posters, gamblers, and investors.