Let's talk about our Red Rush strategy...

In general, for future votes on regulations, this should be taken into account somehow.

I've been thinking about this issue.
It's practically impossible.

For example, if there's a vote on template XXX, then only players with N+ official games on it should be allowed to participate. The exact value of N is debatable.

But how do you determine N? And what if someone has N-1? In the case of Ranked Play (RR), N should be quite large, and RR isn't possible in every game.
Let's take your results. You have a total of 21 official games on HW: 4 - Balance, 3 - 8mm6a, 1 - Nostalgia, 5 - 8xm12a, 2 - h3dm1, 3 - 6lm10a, and, presumably, 3 on 2sm4d(3) (vbn's data is lost).
You definitely don't meet the requirements for Diamond and Mininostalgia.
It's impossible to take into account your games played somewhere else. If we take yours into account, then we have to take everyone else's into account. Checking would be too much work, and trusting would be the same as what's happening now - we trust that players don't just randomly assign points.

Creating such statistics for each of the hundred people who want to vote is a waste of time; it's better to do something more useful.
Should we introduce an authorship coefficient and a noob coefficient?

Look at the results. In my opinion, people are voting reasonably. If they don't know, they don't answer. There aren't many random users, and if there are, they also vote randomly, which is an acceptable margin of error.

Regarding Ranked Play, the main argument for those voting to ban it is the uniformity of rules for all templates; it's easier for people this way.
In general, the main benefit of these polls is that players take a thoughtful look at the rules, think about them, and draw conclusions, primarily for themselves.

Personally, I almost never vote; I don't care what rules to play by, and it's even more interesting to diversify.