You had every opportunity to say that while we were writing the constitution.
Right, yeah, let's talk about the constitution. I will omit for a moment the fact that it has yet to be ratified as per its own rules - I understand that this is beyond the control of the currently active members.
As per the "third draft", which is the version you voted upon and therefore presumably the current working version:
All society members with more than 100 posts will be allowed to vote in the elections, which will be held in a specially created subforum on the website. Nominees may be selected by any member, although the Council holds the right to veto nominations for any reason. The council also has the right to revoke voting privileges from a member.
Since the term "society members" (or any reasonable equivalent) has not been defined anywhere throughout the document, and since you gave yourself no right to
appoint such members (membership is currently completely undefined, as that entire section was removed after the second draft - I think there was a vague idea being discussed, but it never went anywhere), we have to assume that an existing facility will be used. The closest existing facility is forum members, and it seems to logically tie together with the post-count requirement.
So no, as per the constitution no one will be PMing you to demand voting privileges. If there's anyone you'd like to withhold voting rights from, I'd like to ask you to reach an agreement about that with the ZC and post
publicly a list of forum members to be disallowed from voting, together with your reasoning for that.
You should also probably tell us when you intend for the whole council to be re-elected. You agreed that this would happen every six months, but never specified the date of the first election; unless you want to apply it retroactively to the December election, in which case it's well overdue.