If neither proposal gets 67%, I believe that means that the current system (both lighthearted and serious disputes) would be able to be created in Bike Racks.
That is not the current system. The current system is that the Charter indicates that the forum is only to be used for genuine disputes, but some people claim that because it doesn't prohibit mock disputes, those are also allowed.
Keeping the current wording would mean that we would continue with the dispute about what Bike Racks should be used for. I would have grounds to complain about its use for mock threads, and people would have the same dubious (IMO) grounds to continue using it for mock threads and for whatever else is not expressly prohibited by the text.
If people want to avoid revisiting this issue, then we have to clarify the Charter by passing one of the proposals.
I question the validity of the committee deciding which proposal to put up based on a straw poll.
It seems to me that the committee decided that they could not offer only one proposal for this amendment, because there were two distinct viewpoints represented on the board, and offering only one proposal would seem like the committee was choosing for the membership.
I fail to see why an informal preference poll would change that. It has no validity whatsoever in any official sense.
I think the fairer thing to do would be to offer both propositions at the same time, as has been discussed. I would ask those who favor the rerouting proposal, if they would feel satisfied if the tightening proposal were offered first based on the results of a straw poll.