I have no intention to do any detrimental to the U3P.

I'm sure that you're not trying to do anything detrimental to the U3P, but consider what you're saying in the post above. You are saying that people who "do not understand" should just not vote, which is a logic incredibly detrimental to the U3P as a whole. Effectively, you are saying that if people are not quick enough to understand the proposition, they should not have representation. This sets a troubling precedent, especially when we consider that people have not been given enough time to even understand the options of the vote. To me, this is unacceptable. There is no rush in democracy. As someone who is being represented, I want the U3P to make decisions based on reasoned discussion and debate. Not rushed with poorly formulated votes and misunderstanding.

I have been talking this over in chat for the last month.

Just because you have talked to some people about it in chat, this does not mean that everyone has truly had chance to address the issue (as is evident by people not understanding what even the options are). As such, I would suggest that even though you are very much in favour, that for the health of the U3P as a whole, you should consider what a vote like this, and how you suggest this vote should go, means.

I would also like to suggest that having a chat with a select amount of people limits the ability of people to object, and doesn't make me feel better about this at all.