Activating the Segwit proposal requires 95{88c91daedd271a990a10650c05d769cae2765e0603edf30ca95f18704e5748e8} of mining hash power to "signal support" for it.

This may be understood as a vote, with giving a small minority veto power. But there is a different way to see this process.

At segwit.org, one finds this explanation:

I thought miners vote on proposals?

Miner activated soft forks are a convenient shortcut to activating soft forks because it allows the changes to activate before a significant portion of the economy upgrades. The signalling process is just to coordinate when a supermajority of hashrate has upgraded, nodes can then activate and begin enforcing the new rules. It was never intended to be a vote although it has an unintentional veto where a small amount of hash power can hold up the process.

In other words, the "signaling" language assumes that there is no valid reason to oppose a new proposal and the only question is if miners are paying attention and are not too lazy to upgrade their systems. "Signal support" means only declaring that they have done the homework necessary for everyone to proceed in lockstep.

That makes sense.

In contrast, having miners vote on proposals in the first place may be a bad idea, especially considering recently discovered possible conflicts of interest. And even if one would want to have a voting system giving all the power to the miners, it wouldn't make much sense to give a small block of 5{88c91daedd271a990a10650c05d769cae2765e0603edf30ca95f18704e5748e8} veto power.

So what was the intent of that "95{88c91daedd271a990a10650c05d769cae2765e0603edf30ca95f18704e5748e8}" requirement? Was that supposed to be a vote? Should this be a vote? What exactly does "signaling support" mean?