Election fever

How does Century Village achieve an election process that truly represents all of the people living in the village?

It's a gnarly question with many differing points of view.
The UCO administration seems happy with the staus quo where delegates appointed from the associations vote for the candidates, supposedly reflecting the wishes of the residents of their particular group. But that's not really working effectively. A lot of delegates don't show up at the assemblies and a lot of them just vote whatever they think is best without any consensus from their association. If a delegate doesn't vote according to the wishes of the association , there's no remedy. Absent delegates leave associations under-represented with their members not having a say.
Another perspective says that only resident owners of condo's should get the vote. The notion  that only resident owners should be allowed to vote is one that could cause some controversy. Absentee landlords or snowbirds who spend a few weeks or months in the village would be disenfranchised. Not having a say in elections could be a deterrent to attracting potential buyers.  The question that should be asked is: Would it be fair to prevent owners from voting because they don't live here full time ? Should there be a qualifier imposing a residency clause?
There are some questions about conducting elections giving owners an exclusive vote. There's a lot of people who own multiple units in the village. Do they get to vote multiple times according to the number of units they own ? That's the way elections are conducted in corporations where shareholders get to vote according to the number of shares they own.
Then there's the question of co-owners. Who gets to vote if , as in many cases, there are more than one owner of a unit? It's possible, and likely, that two people living in a unit have different opinions on who should be elected.
Perhaps the best way to approach the issue is to look back at the development of elections under the democratic principles we all hold so dear.
In the early years of the American Republic, only male landowners got to vote. It wasn't until the early part of the twentieth century that the suffragette movement caused the change allowing women the vote. Changes to the voting act came about in the nineteenth century allowing disenfranchised minorities the vote. That included people who didn't own land but for the most part worked and lived as sharecroppers. Attempts were made to prevent people from voting by applying unfair regulations to qualify. Those regulations were abandoned after civil rights  legislation was introduced striking them down
The only fair and democratic procedure in American elections is to give everyone the right to vote.In a true democracy, which Century Village is not, everyone gets a vote.
Different factions in Century Village have different ideas about what is fair and what is right in electing officers. It is apparent that most people who are invested in the village don't want to see any changes that would erode their authority and control. It's a double edged sword that cuts both ways. Disenfranchising one segment of the population usually results in the loss of voting  rights for others.
A truly democratic procedure would give everyone a vote. That means that anyone possessing a CV.  ID. card gets a vote. The issue that owners find objectionable about this procedure is that transient residents could and probably would vote for officers who favor their rights over the rights of the owners. If this is unacceptable  the only way out is to revert to corporate procedures where owners get to vote according to the number of units they own. That may not be acceptable either as owners of single units would feel as though their rights are being eroded by owners of multiple units who are not just looking to live here but using the village as a cash cow investment.
It's a difficult situation in Century Village. different factions looking to maintain their control at the expense and detriment of others has led us to the situation where we find ourselves.
It is time for a change to an antiquated election  system that has long outlived it's usefulness.
Just what that change is going to be is anyone's guess.