topperfalkon wrote:The rules of the election haven't changed, just the time allocated for nominations.
The timing is part of the rules, as your next sentence implies.
Imagine if, during the 2009 general election campaign, on the day that nominations closed Gordon Brown had postponed the election date by 11 days. The uproar would have been enormous.
It's still within the timebox allowed by policy.
I don't see it as unreasonable to postpone the start of an election when another election is currently underway.
I would not have objected to postponing the BOG election, or of increasing the time allowed for nominations, if this had been done at the beginning. My objections to changing the rules during the election process
. As Scuzzmonkey points out, John Barron resigned on the 27th June, and the announcement for start of nominations for the BOG election was posted 8 days later on the 5th of July, when it was already known
that there would be a N.O. election.
On the 10th of July, Azrael announced that the nominations will end on the 19th. On the 14th of July, Azrael announced
the start of the vote for NO. He must have known at that point that the elections would overlap.
Only on the 19th of July, 44 minutes before the end of nominations, does Azrael announce the extension of the nomination period, citing the overlap with the NO election.
I note that the Party has in the past conducted multiple overlapping votes (for election of officers, for policies, and for changing the constitution), with (to the best of my knowledge) no-one objecting to the overlap. So why now?