Anyone can vote here: http://www.austingdc.net/vote/
The registration process is painless and near-effortless. To read the god-awful pitch for my abstract (rather than the abstract itself), just run a search in the entries for "Alexander". If you want to do things the hard way/get a better look at the competition, you can scroll through the long list of rival entries and look for "Alexander the Great: Narrative Approaches to Ludic Historiography and Simulation."
If you've got a lot of school spirit, you may be pleased to note that IMD alumnus Stephen Dinehart also has a lecture in the running, "The Importance of Story."
But why should you vote to send a talk about Alexander the Great to the Austin GDC?
I'm hoping to give a talk based on what I learned last semester in a class on Alexander the Great, where I played every goddamn video game to prominently feature him in order to break down their interpretations (or willful ignorance) of conflicting historical sources. I think interactivity means something important to how we understand historiography, and since history is used, time and time again, as fodder for game-stories, I think it's time we got it right. I have a few ideas about how to do that.
Alternatively, history provides us with a testbed for stories, a chance to see which ones thrive despite the vagaries of authorial agency. I find this close enough to games (where a good plot can survive the most malicious player) that there must be a kernel of truth we can pull from history to make compelling interactive experiences.