Bitcoin.com is owned by Roger Ver, who has a very large amount of coins and openly supports big blocks.  It's possible that he signed with his own addresses, in which case the vote was void (because he owns more BTC than the amount used in the vote).

It's essential to have a neutral site on this.  The question is whether people would trust a smaller site to protect their privacy when they prove ownership of large quantities of Bitcoin.

There's also the fact that the economy doesn't have to dictate everything, because that would favour richer people.