Ubuntu also moved to systemd because everyone was moving to systemd. Before that, Ubuntu has their own init system called Upstart, and there was much debate in Debian on whether to use systemd or Upstart.
It's my understanding that there was an attempt to affect the voting by limiting who had the ability to vote, simply because one of the lead developers was a prominent Upstart supporter. One interesting reference is here, though this is not the source I read about the vote manipulation from.
That said, I'm not overly familiar with how Debian elections are carried out. I only know what I came across in the last couple weeks when I was trying to get a grip on why major distributions were going so solidly with systemd, given issues that so many have found in the package. The trick to remember is that systemd is not the only solution to any {real|perceived} issues that sysvinit may have: There's also openrc and Upstart, to name two other alternatives, and they each have different solutions to bring to the table. Part of what made Linux what it is is the ability to choose what you want in your distro, to determine what you think is really "broken" and what the solution should be.
Honestly, I started getting migraines trying to wade through all the political crap. Proponents of systemd started to sound like American politicians (Democrat or Republican, take your pick; they both tell lies and break promises). It's mind-numbing, which I think is the point. I couldn't find a distro without systemd at all (this was a couple weeks ago, before I head of Devuan) so I wiped my Linux (Fedora) box and put FreeBSD on it.
Yeah, I'll have to learn how to deal with 'ports', but I won't have to deal with the nightmare that appears to be systemd.