Yikes!

Q J 6 5
A Q 10 6
8
A 10 7 4
9 7 3 2 K 8 4
K 8 4 7 5 2
9 7 4 K Q 5 2
J 9 6 K Q 2
A 10
J 9 3
A J 10 6 3
8 5 3 Vul: E-W

SouthWestNorthEast
Pass Pass 1 Pass
1 Pass 1 Pass
1 NT Pass Pass Dbl
Pass Pass Redbl All pass

This hand was originally picked up for Redoubles, here the redoubling side picking up a whopping high score, but which redouble, of course, wouldn't have been available without an incautious double. The final score was plus 1160 for the declaring side (on 3 overtricks). It coulda been worse. Had they been vulnerable, 3 overtricks would have meant 1200 by themselves! Should the balancers run somewhere? Ninety percent , oh maybe 95% of the time, I would say certainly. You can't let that redouble stand. They'll almost always wrap it around your neck at the one level.
Unfortunately, here the vulnerability is against the balancing side, which should have been one reason not to balance in the first place. Down four (doubled, you may be sure) would be 1100, a slight saving of 60 points, though since this is a modest (lucky) game hand, it's not too likely you'll have company at that empyrean level. And they must enter at the two level, which is to say, they'll need four winners with no good fit anywhere just to save 60 points, with the possibility of winding up with only 3, the number of winners they had in the opps' no trump contract.
Balancing is my most unfavored bid. First, you're trusting your opponents to tell you when to bid. E-W passed five times and now let the opponents tell them it's okay to stick their neck out? C'mon, fellas. The opponents will not too rarely be underbid, as here on a lucky 23-hcp no trump game. So let 'em be underbid. They would have picked up 180 points on the hand with the same number of tricks. The vulnerability should also have inhibited that risky bid when the opps only going for a partial. Did East think they can both find and make a two level bid, given his flat hand and given that his partner has just one bid to find it? When East's only four-card suit was bid by his LHO? And if he thought it could happen, did he honestly think it was likely?
C'mon fellas. You're just biting off trouble with no apparent indication that you can better the situation. You passed five times between you! Now do you want to go for 8 tricks to their five? Is there something in the cards that would invite that speculation, that the bidding side can probably make only 5 tricks while the passers can count on 8? Yes, sometimes not-vul you might take a bit of a chance. A two bid, doubled and down one, might be better than their partial, but even there you're looking for the majority of the tricks with no indication of a good fit and not the slightest assurance that you have the majority of hcp's.
I have a few comments to offer about balancing: First, you don't hafta balance. There's nothing in the rule book that demands it, nothing in the make-up of the cards that assures you of a viable spot when you balance, and certainly nothing that can guarantee you that the opponents have bid well.
Secondly, if you do like to balance, I would strongly recommend that you stick to the safer situations until you're a nationally recognized expert. And safer situations, I would define as not-vulnerable, at the one or two level and where you have 4 cards in every unbid suit. That's the safest you can expect for a genuine balance. Oh, of course if you want to hedge a little on those criteria, after a few successes, sure you might try the three level not-vul or the two level vul, or maybe 4-3 in the two unbid suits. Sure, be my guest. Take a few chances and see what happens. But I would strongly advise not to go beyond that (I am referring to balancing bids, which I'll define as a situation where both partners have passed at least once). They just don't pay that well, by and large. Of course, if you have timid opponents, you may get by undoubled when you should have been, etc., etc. But you'd do well to note the times a balancing bid works only because the opponents weren't of the top rung.
Thirdly, you might give consideration to venting your aggressiveness early, trusting that a partner who then passes has heard you and has nothing of note. On the above hand, East has 13 hcp's and just might have made a takeout double over a club if he wanted to get aggressive. The hand is not really suited to a takeout double and I don't recommend it, exactly, though I wouldn't find it abhorrent to advertise that strength. After all, you might find a partner with a five-card major, and even a four-card major might make your side competitive. I only say that a hand unsuited to a takeout double of a club, offering your partner three suits at the one level, is not therefore suited to a two-level balancing takeout double, particularly when one's best and only four-card suit has been bid on the doubler's left! Common sense, indeed, tells you it is necessarily less suited to an aggressive double at that point.