If there was only one position, only one vote. Two positions, two elections, one vote per member for each elections/position.
Or put it another way, consider if because we have two positions, everyone filled in two ballot papers, one for each position. Now assume you like candidate A more than B, and B more than C. The sensible way to fill in your ballot paper would be to vote A, B, C on both papers.
So candidate A then gets elected to both positions. At this point, the counters say candidate A can fill only one position, so we give him the first position, and recount the second position election, ignoring votes for candidate A as he can't have both positions. You get exactly the same effect as if a single ballot is sent, and counted once per position. This is how it has been counted in this election, and sounds normal. I can't see any sensible way of doing it otherwise under the current constitution - except to complicate the hell out of the process by issuing each member with one ballot paper per position, then check that the ballot papers per member matched, then you still get exactly the same result.
I would have preferred to be represented by Col Jones, but I can't find anything to criticise in the counting process,
dodo