There is a misconception that miners actually vote to implement any new rules or not. They essentially are signalling support for it, or rather compatibility but do not decide which rules get implemented or not. The full nodes which comprises of the economic majority are directly responsible for the set of rules being implemented.
I think that the verb “signal” is overused in this community and may have misled what miners actually do by “signaling support” for a change. A more preferable wording would be that they agree upon the change; they
authorize the change. They may not decide which rules get implemented without the people's permission, but neither the opposite.
Here's an example: If a change was proposed which would incentivize the miners to authorize it, but wasn't in agreement from the side of the people, what would happen? I guess that the people would split the chain, but if they hadn't enough power to secure it, wouldn't they come to a dead end? Or to change it a little bit, if there were two forks of Bitcoin, wouldn't the people prefer the one that is the most secure?
Food for thought.