I worry that the CLAM rich will vote to disenfranchise the CLAM poor - but Creative points out that the voting system is only a provably fair way of gathering information about consensus.
Disagree that it does that. It gathers provably-accurate information about votes, that is all.
Consensus exists because the network does not fail, and I'm not sure there is actually a better way to gather information than just that. That consensus is not necessarily egalitarian, however. Various parties may influence it in highly unequal ways.
I suppose there are different, largely subjective, ways to define what it means to fail. If control is centralized, even in a de facto manner, then I personally consider that a failure because much more efficient and mature centrally-controlled systems exist, making such a system pointless. Others may disagree with my assessment. No one can dictate what someone else values.