I've been suspended for 7 days on Stack Overflow. The reason is supposedly for voting irregularity. That is incorrect, and so I lodged an appeal.
There are a number of different things that count as a "voting irregularity", there are even cases where co-workers or persons using the same public Wi-Fi vote in a pattern that, when added to other evidence, accumulates to suspicious behavior warranting action beyond a warning:
I want to know, am I going to miss the election?
Can I still vote while the appeal is pending?
Is it possible for the results of the appeal to take longer than the actual suspension time?
Yes, it's a virtual certainty.
While it may seem unfair the decision ought to have been made for a good reason, the reason should have been documented and you should have been informed of it. If that turns out in your favor, a few weeks later, it would be unfair to re-run the election to include a single vote; and there is a margin of error which should be accounted for.
Depending on the nature of the mistake, on either side, a warning may be used; where one is well past the line so minimal a punishment would be unfair to the majority.
Bear in mind that some people have never done anything to get suspended, and any warnings have been infrequent (and edge cases, cough). So, being suspended is a fairly big deal, something to understand and take steps to avoid.
Once your complaint is processed the explanation should be provided to you, for you to understand and agree with; or dispute.
Your whole complaint seems to be that there were not sufficient details, and a general denial. Now that you've read the links at the top of this answer you can decide if a case of "voting irregularities" has a definition wider than you anticipated.
In the end it turned out that during the election at no time were the votes for the candidates close; a single vote could not have changed the outcome.
Your request to have your appeal processed more quickly, or a request that an exception should be made to allow you to vote, would have had no effect. It would have set a precedent to allow such requests, at the expense of other matters that must be attended to.