Only Yes votes matter and you need 5 of them. You could have 3000 No votes; as long as you get 5 Yes votes, you win the election. It's not even half of the voters; according to your 20+ voter comment, 25% of the voters need to somehow be encouraged to vote favorably. If the rest scream their lungs out about real problems in the contract, who cares? You get listed if you can bribe, threaten, over-promise, or otherwise get 5 people to supprt you.
It's actually even worse because you can even buy one vote yourself and that seems somehow to be quite OK.
This does seem like a design flaw.
It actually used to be different - the requirement used to be that you had to get a score of +5. So if you had 2 no votes you'd need 9 Yes votes to pass.
In theory I much prefer that (old) way - but there's a few problems with it :
Number of voters changes as people buy and sell shares.
Some voters don't vote at all - or aren't very active.
Counting NOs as double gives undue weight when some people may vote NO for invalid reasons (e.g. they run a competitive asset or they don't understand a contract or they just don't like the issuer).
Unfortunately pretty much ANY voting system is going be flawed when the criteria for voting is unrelated to capability to properly assess securities. And that ends up where we are now:
People criticise assets that were approved.
Those whose assets aren't approved (or take a long time) blame the voters.
I'm not going to get into whether your asset should be approved or not (I've previously indicated that I'd have voted YES if I had a vote). But let's just say that I've yet to see someone who had problems getting votes come here and say "This time the voters were right and I'm cancelling my security as it wasn't up to scratch." ALL issuers who don't get votes as fast as they'd like are going to blame the voters - so when it happens (as is the case here) it doesn't actually shed any light on the situation - as you'd be saying it whether your asset should have been approved or not.
At root the problem is money. To have securities properly checked is potentially expensive - you need multiple people doing it (to avoid bias) and those capable of doing it properly aren't going to be cheap. If some panel of suitable people were to be paid to screen securities then the registration fee would need to rise significantly. And that's where the problem comes - because most issuers believe their contract is already fine. So why would they pay a large fee to BTC-TC to have some panel agree with them when they could list on Bitfunder much cheaper?
BTC-TC and Bitfunder compete with one another in part on price - neither can afford to raise their listing fees if the other doesn't.
The starting point for improved standards (both in approving worthy listings and rejecting bad ones) would, in my view, be for burnside and Ukyo to agree that they'll BOTH raise their listing fees significantly. Then they'd have the budget to do more DD on listings. Until then BTC-TC is limited to doing whatever can be done for free - which means unpaid volunteers who may well not be competent.