We weren't necessarily looking for a leader to emerge from the vote. We just wanted to see which, if any, designs had the support of 25 people. Clearly, if one design had raced away then that may have been deemed the winner straight away. But if there were several in the same sort of ballpark, all above 25 votes, then we would have had another round of votes.
Having lots of options didn't reduce focus. All everyone had to do was go through each design, one by one, and for each one decide if they would buy it or not. A simple yes/no decision for each one. That would be the same for another vote with, say, just a handful of options.
The only ways we will get a different result on a further poll is if (a) people didn't understand the voting system last time but do this time (even though it would be the same system), or (b) people have changed their minds since the previous vote, or (c) different people vote this time.
If you're saying that (a) doesn't apply, as everyone understood the system last time, then (b) and (c) feels like just keeping polling until we get a viable result. But if one design scrapes in above 25, it is far from guaranteed that those 25 would still commit to buying the watch when it was ready around the middle of next year. So we really need to be comfortably above 25 if possible. And that just feels a long way off given the result of the previous poll.
I take the point that it doesn't cost anything to have another poll. But you do have to question whether we are flogging a dead horse, given the low numbers in the previous poll.
But let's see what other views are put forward and then we'll see where we get to.