nameq: It was the same the previous year. I recall people being unhappy because, like you, they said they voted against some of the directors, especially Putnam and Falk.
JimC was campaigning for people to vote no on Putnam and Falk prior to the SHM and others were agreeing with him, so it's safe to assume that they got a fair number of nay votes.
Perhaps you should contact the SEC to express your concern.
The results were published in the 10Q filings dated 11/14/03 and 08/14/02 respectively under "Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders".
Please note that the results of the proxy vote are deceptive as according to this copy of the proxy form, there is no voting category titled "against".
However this should not dissuade shareholders concerned about the veracity of the results from petitioning for a recount.
As to your question on how one might go about petitioning for a recount, I suggest asking the question to the Chairman of the Board of the company, as the Articles of Incorporation may include specific provisions speaking to the request for recount, and forwarding a copy of your petition for a recount to the Delaware Secretary of State.
EDIT: I would also seek clarification from a board member on why the proxy was absent of a "against" or "negative" category although the results account for a "negative" category. I would also inquire as to whether there is a different weighting to "negative votes" and "votes withheld" and, if there is, inquire further on why the proxy failed to provide a cateogory for "negative votes".
Any answers you receive can be corroborated with the Articles of Incorporation which should be on file with the State of Delaware.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
