What this means is:

WG21, what we usually call "the C++ committee" is the working group that prepares the C++ draft to the actual ISO committee, that is SC22, that approves the standard.

In WG21, people vote (or poll, really) as individual experts, who are members of one national board or an another. WG21 decided to send a draft to SC22 with knowledge that multiple national bodies (NBs) would object, it wasn't exactly a secret to anyone.

Then, in the ratification of the actual standard, it is NBs from different countries that actually vote. These are usually the same people who take part in WG21 work, though NBs can decide by themselves how they choose their vote.

In my national board, majority was against, with zero objections, so our NB chose to be one of the 9 countries who voted against. I do not know how other national boards work out their vote, but AFAIK most of them also have internal vote for that. This is how international standards committees are supposed to work, as to not have any country or entity push a standard that doesn't have clear consensus. There are varying opinions if that suits programming language development or not, and I'm not interested in that debate.

For the standard to be ratified, it needs both 2/3s majority in favour, and no more than 1/4th objecting. Now the SC22 vote failed on both counts, which pretty much means there isn't going to be C++26. We don't have time in the committee to get it approved in 2026 anymore.

I have my own thoughts about why we went from "zero objections ever" to failing both requirements. And even if I was part of the objecting votes, I hardly consider the result of having disapproved ballot a good outcome. It shouldn't have ever gotten to the point where that was even an option.