Sentences with phrase «seats changed parties»

The table below details how many seats changed parties as the result of a special election.

Four seats changed parties, two in each direction.

Only one seat changed party, AD - 10 in Suffolk County, changing from Republican to Democrat.

Just one seat changed party hands in the past decade.

Only one seat changed party hands in 2016.

In the previous ten gubernatorial elections in Minnesota, six have resulted in the seat changing party hands.

Not exact matches

In this case, the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats and lost official party status, permanently changing the political landscape in this country.

Now the GOP leadership is reasserting control: the party has changed its nomination rules to discourage rebellious Tea Party candidates and warned mutinous congressmen to behave, or lose their committee sparty has changed its nomination rules to discourage rebellious Tea Party candidates and warned mutinous congressmen to behave, or lose their committee sParty candidates and warned mutinous congressmen to behave, or lose their committee seats.

The Pierre's Spinner said the typical Wall Street holiday party has changed from stuffy buffet - style dinners with seating arrangements to networking events where guests mingle while drinking wine and noshing on high - end appetizers.

Local elections are often said to be about local issues but actually most of the changes over time in shares of council seats won the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats can be accounted for by changes the popularity of these parties at the national level.

The R - squareds being around 0.6 are the basis for the claim above that 60 % of the fluctuations in the fortunes of the main parties on council seats are due to changes in national popularity.

Without boundary changes this is simply the share of seats up that were won by the party minus the share they were defending (i.e. won four years ago).

The graphs below show how changes in the shares of council seats won by each party are strongly correlated with changes in general election vote intentions.

Chambers in either of the «likely» categories are not expected to change party control on Election Day, but it's possible that the minority party could net a non-trivial number of seats and nibble into the majority's margins.

While the historical data show that changes in the percentage of the council seats that a party wins is reasonably strongly correlated with changes in that party's poll share, that basis for forecasting this year would not work.

Assuming Mr Clegg accepts the convention that, until and unless our voting system is changed, what matters is seats, then he is saying if Labour remains the largest party it should have a shot at staying in office.

What would be the point of doubling seats (to 100 MPs) in two elections if not to take a deal as similar to this one as possible from one of the major parties, and to change the political system.

My forecasting model for seat gains / losses at local elections has previously been a simple model based on change in party support in the polls.

While Theresa May may be listening to right - wing voices within her own party at the moment, she will listen to centre - left voices wanting a change in direction if she loses this safe seat, he says.

My model takes into account five things: the vote share a party received in the by - election constituency at the preceding general election; changes in public opinion towards the party since the last general election; whether the party won the seat at the last election; whether the party is in government; and whether there are «party effects» on by - election outcomes.

Or, does the number of seats held by each party matter even if a change in the number of seats held doesn't lead to a change in control of the body?

In the most recent election, as the original post notes, neither of the major parties changed their share of seats in local government offices by more than 0.3 %, which rounds down to 0 %, so it is fair to say that there was «no clear winner» judged relative to the status quo.

More results Changing Seats Seats In Doubt Electorates A-Z Latest Results Changing Seats Party Totals

It not only deprived him of seats that are rightly his, it undermines any hope that Clegg will be able to carry his party into a second coalition with Cameron in a future hung parliament — a parliament which is now more likely because of the failure of boundary changes.

The party failed to win any council seats in Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle in the local elections earlier this year, and today's visit with shadow chancellor George Osborne is part of a wider drive to persuade voters that the Tories have changed.

Election barometer The Political Forecasting Unit's «election barometer», designed to capture the changing state of the race as it unfolds through the campaign, shows Labour as the largest party, 29 seats ahead of the Conservatives but still 50 seats short of an overall majority.

I realize that the GA or VA seats are unlikely to change party hands but the incumbant members have made various gaffes and I do not have a handle on local sentiment or primary challengers.

When Kakto takes office, it will mean the 24th Congressional District seat has changed parties every election since former Rep. Jim Walsh retired before the 2008 election after 20 years in office.

Boundaries have changed in many seats since 2005, and the strength of the Lib Dems means some two - way marginals now look more like three - way marginals: add in the rise of smaller parties such as the Greens, plus highly volatile national polls, and even hardened tactical voters may struggle to work out which horse to back locally this time.

So why has this party — without a single seat in parliament — managed to change government and opposition policy on what many voters think to be the most important issue of the day?

Most psephologists predict that they will lose between 5 and 7 of their seats (out of 57 currently) but this ignores their strong record of localist campaigning and incumbency even after previous boundary changes which have allowed them invariably to buck the electoral trend better than the other two main parties.

The United Kingdom Parliamentary boundary changes in Scotland, in 2005, were harmful to the Party, breaking up two of the Conservatives» best prospects, Edinburgh Pentlands, and Ayr, with the result that the Scottish Conservatives only won one seat in 2005.

There was little change outside Northern Ireland, with 620 out of the 641 seats electing candidates from the same party as they did in 1997.

This move proved completely effective, as no State or Federal legislative office changed party in the 2004 election, although 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 state assembly seats were potentially at risk.

These boundary changes are good for winning extra seats but bad if the Conservative party wishes to form a Government at the next election.

Their three - stage debate format could easily have been changed so the first debate included all parties with an MP, the second any party contesting all seats, or at least a majority of seats, and a final one with the two men who had a chance of becoming prime minister.

During World War II, despite the wartime truce between Labour, the Liberals and Conservatives (who were in coalition together), several seats changed hands when minor parties or independents made gains, including the first - ever SNP victory.

Is there a chance that any party that wins a majority of seats then has a change of heart on voting reform, on the back of their first - past - the - post success?

Given the two main parties have only seen minor changes to their level of support this week, the projected share of seats in the new parliament remains the same as last week:

New Patriotic Party [NPP] Member of Parliament for the Ayawaso West Wuogon Constituency, Emmanuel Agyarko, has lashed out at those criticizing government for changing the name of the seat of government from Flagstaff House to Jubilee House.

And as every political junkie knows, open seats are much more likely to change party control than districts held by an incumbent.

Speaking on a day when several cabinet ministers suggested that Labour voters should cast their ballot for the Liberal Democrats in some seats, the former prime minister set himself against the tactic, and was contemptuous of Nick Clegg's party and its claim to represent real change.

In state houses, 42 seats, or 16.5 % of termed - out seats, changed party hands.

For the Conservatives, MPs in danger of losing their seat poses a risk to getting the boundary changes through, and it's likely the party will try to use retirements, peerages and so forth to ensure no current Tory MPs lose out.

The changes in England and Wales result in the Conservatives losing 10 seats, Labour losing 28 seats, the Liberal Democrats losing 4 and the Greens losing Brighton Pavilion (though notional calculations like these risk underestimating the performance of parties with isolated pockets of support like the Greens and Lib Dems, so it may not hit them as hard as these suggest).

Many constituency boundaries changed for the 2010 general election and this seat changed quite significantly which made the seat less of a Labour Party safe seat based on council results for electoral wards.

In state senates, 19 seats, or 15.7 % of termed - out seats, changed party hands.

He notes that the LibDem constitution requires the party to fight every seat and 50 % of members would have to vote to change that.

111 seats changed hands compared to the result in 2010 plus three by - election gains reverted to the party that won the seat at the last general election in 2010.

We don't yet know for sure the impact of the reduction in the number of constituencies — the Conservatives should be the net beneficiaries, but the parties will fight over every boundary line; until the new map is drawn we won't know how many seats will change hands for a given swing.