Gary, these ballots have multiple positions like our state ballots do. There is nothing in them indicating a team of candidates. I realize that without considering our bylaws, Robert's Rules is clear. However, I am not sure I agree with comments made so far that a "ballot cast" is the same as a "vote cast" when plain language bylaws are considered. I have read Robert's Rules and in various places it speaks of a "ballot" as a thing that is submitted for the purpose of votes before these votes are known. At the time they are cast into a location, they are spoke of as a "ballot." Having a choice of abstention is as I have heard put "an oxymoron." Nevertheless, I am not sure that the inclusion of something like a choice of "Abstention" on a ballot renders it no longer a ballot, even if it is not a vote counted. It may still be a ballot cast as far as the writers of our bylaws intended. The words "abstention" or "votes" do not appear in our bylaws in our Article on our election process; only "ballots cast." While Robert's Rules are clear, they recognize repeatedly that an organization's documents supersede Robert's Rules. In fact, in our case, without the bylaws defining the majority as "ballots cast" a person could win with a single vote. All sorts of problems could arise. The possibility exists that the authors of our bylaws intended it to taken something like "all those voting and present" or simply "all those present." In my opinion, just because we made the mistake of going to an electronic election (not in our bylaws btw) and also making the mistake of allowing abstention as a choice on the ballot, does not necessarily mean we should invalidate our bylaws or assume that the authors meant "votes cast" when they wrote "ballots cast." Indeed, both terms were available for use and again "votes" never appears once in the entire article on elections. I think the best thing for us to do is to bring this to the body and vote on an interpretation of our bylaws and amend the bylaws as soon as possible for clarity.