I disagree.

CLAMour, the 'voting' mechanism, is not 'law'.
In fact, it already exists in every network that implements a 'soft-fork'.

A 'soft-fork' in most networks is implemented when a set portion of the block-creating network has updated to the client that contains that feature.
CLAMour is very similar to this process - with one very important difference.
It occurs before the implementation of a change and doesn't affect consensus at all - on it's own.

CLAMour does not require an update to software or the consensus rules the client implements to register support.
CLAMour simplifies and makes available to every-day users the process of defining a change.
It does not require 'permission' or approval.

---

This is important; much more-so than any single issue.
Think of all of the 'positive' changes that have been proposed to other networks, such as BTC.
Privacy features such as Tor and blockchain obfuscation, capacity changes such as side-chains/lightning-networks/blocksize/etc., expanded Turing-complete scripting systems, and the list goes on.

One of the primary sources of resistance to these changes is the uncertainty of support.
There is no ground-truth.  
No way to force-the-hand of the development process.

It is much harder to ignore a proposal which comes with provable super-majority support - even if 'special-interests' resist that change.

---

CLAMour allows our users to create new proposals and ideas for CLAM.
CLAMour allows our users to express how they see the future of CLAM.
CLAMour allows our users to prove that they have support for changes to CLAM.

Without approval.
Without permission.

CLAMour is nothing more than information/data.
And yet, information brings the power of persuasion and factually based debate.

It removes power from individuals.
It gives power to stakeholders and the network.