The current charter dictates that a tie vote passes. The intention was to allow controversial proposals to pass, so that more things happen. Given that virtually none of the proposals have passed so far, this seems like a reasonable bit of foresight on the part of the constitutional committee. The example you gave only applies, I think, when the voters are divided into two opposing camps - in that case, you're guaranteed to have anarchy. In our case, however, it's every wyrm for himself, and it seems to me there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe my intuition is wrong though...
...and you could always propose an amendment to change things.
