But we are incorporated in Delaware. We should only be required to file in Delaware.

Why all the confusing California stuff?

The link was provided to assist ease2002 in arriving at the correct meaning of plurality voting, which was so obviously misunderstood and wrong:

People, please do your own research on plurality voting. Rest assured that if the majority of shareholders vote against (meaning they vote and do not abstain), for example, Carlton Johnson (SWARTZ), he would be forced down from his position.

This is the salient section, with California removed to avoid any further confusion:

Under the plurality vote standard in effect in a majority of states, including ... Delaware, the nominees for director receiving the highest number of affirmative votes, up to the number of directors to be elected, are elected. Votes against a nominee, and votes withheld, have no effect. Therefore, a nominee may be elected with a single favorable vote, even if a majority of the shares withheld their vote on the candidate. As a result, in an uncontested election, a nominee is virtually assured of being elected.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for the obviouis confusion that the inclusion of references to California caused you, and I trust that the above abridged version is more understandable.

In essence, if there are seven seats available with seven people standing for election, under the plurality system, ALL are elected, subject to receiving at least one vote for. Even those with only ONE vote for and 399,999,999 against(with 400m votes available)would be elected.

Be well