While I'm sure there were no voters who voted knowing that their decision would likely create the consequences we have already seen, nearly everyone I spoke to during contract negotiations back in February/March gave two reasons they were voting no: they didn't trust management (and felt that any language would simply be ignored), and they felt that staffing at every regional carrier would be so bad that management would eventually cave and provide the career advancement (through refleeting and flow through) that they promised anyway. In other words: management was untrustworthy and bluffing. Eight months have now passed: the award of 20 ERJ-175s to Compass, the announcement of all 47 CRJs being moved to PSA, the MIA base closure, and now the announcement that at least 50 ERJs are moving to three different carriers all present a significant stack of evidence to the contrary.
However, for the benefit of the doubt, let's consider the second argument (the one that most no voters have since retreated to), that they voted no with a full understanding consequences, yet did so "for the good of the industry." Can anyone give an example of how Envoy's "no" vote in the past eight months has improved the regional industry? Has the industry as a whole been buoyed to maintain higher pay/work rule standards? Has management somehow been cowed into not asking for concessions from other regionals? Would the potential for thousands of pilots starting at first year pay at carriers with worse pay/work rules be good for the industry? The fact is that the no vote has produced no net positive for the industry and it might be argued that the opposite has occurred with flying being transferred to carriers generally considered to be worse than Envoy (even an Envoy laden with concessions).
While it is unfortunate that management asked for the concessions that they did, it is equally unfortunate that so many pilots voted based on emotions and misinformation instead of looking at the facts.