I like suggestions #1 and #2 but I don't know about #3 -- what's the incentive for the weaker players to participate (and learn from the stronger ones) if their votes don't count for much.
I'd previously suggested the idea of a nomination phase similar to the blackout phase suggested in #1 whereby the team would be broken into two groups based on rating and there would be two rounds -- a nomination round in which one group does a preliminary vote, and a voting round in which the second group chooses from the top 3-5 options of the first. I think this would be better for letting stronger players have more say in the game's direction (assuming they were the group chosen to nominate).
I've been thinking of a couple potential concepts to maybe help renew interest in vote chess.
1. Introduce "team leaders." They could be chosen by group election, highest rating, or on the basis of admin/regualar member. These team leaders would:
2. Allow members to re-vote if desired. (And by this I mean that their previous vote is cancelled, and only the new one counts).
3. Possibly have rating ranges for certain games so that weaker (or sometimes stronger ) players will be able to have a greater say in the direction of the game.
Thanks for reading! If you have any other ideas, write them here.