It seems to me that there's only one person who's gone on record as being opposed to or disgusted by Andrew's election here.
The electoral process may be kind of questionable, but if they make it clear that if you send back a ballot that is marked in some way but hasn't been checked off yes then they take it as a no vote, I don't see the process as being really problematic. You get a slip of paper, you either check yes or you make a scribble of some sort - or even write no - and send it back in. Then your vote is recorded and when they're tallied up the results are in.
85% of the people who voted said yes. That's a majority - and in my opinion, the people who chose not to vote need to suck it up (although, everything that I've read seems to indicate that most people don't care and the ones who are making a fuss about it are the ones who voted no and therefore lost this election).
As to what this says about the royals, democracy, or society as a whole - absolutely nothing. The Royal Society of Science is not an organization that is, to the best of my understanding, publicly financed. It is not require in any way to undertake democratic principles. It is a fellowship of scientists who have in their power the ability to nominate royal fellows - which seem like they're simply honourary fellows with a special title. Do we actually know how many people vote on the honourary positions? If they have a history of low voter turn out then this just means that Andrew's election showed voter apathy (on the part of those who didn't vote) and poor losing (on the part of those making a fuss about it).