Sentences with phrase «vote share changes»

As Liverpool Council is elected in thirds, councillors elected in the 2006 elections defend their seats this year, and the vote share changes are compared on that basis.

Vote share changes are based on the results achieved by parties in 2011 when these seats were last contested.

Vote share changes compared with corresponding 2008 election.

Not exact matches

Nevertheless, Bombardier illustrates everything wrong with multiple voting shares, a concept that makes it possible for intransigent owners to destroy shareholder value while leaving investors no way to push for changes.

If you are a beneficial holder and do not provide specific voting instructions to your broker, under a recent rule change the organization that holds your shares will not be authorized to vote on the election of directors.

If your shares are held in street name, you may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions to your brokerage firm, bank, or other similar entity.

Because of a change in New York Stock Exchange rules, unlike previous annual meetings, your broker will NOT be able to vote your shares with respect to the election of directors if you have not given your broker specific instructions to do so.

If your shares are held in the 401 (k) Plan or Stock Purchase Plan, you may change your vote as indicated above, except that any changes to your voting instructions must be provided by the applicable deadline shown below.

For shares you hold beneficially in the name of a broker, trustee or other nominee, you may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions to your broker, trustee or nominee, or, if

Share: FacebookTwitterLinkedinGoogle + emailVANCOUVER — Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, made the following statement in response to the B.C. NDP and B.C. Green Party announcement regarding their intent to cooperate in the legislature: «It's clear that British Columbians voted for change in this election and support the NDP and Greens» objectives: building a clean economy and putting...

If you are the stockholder of record, you may change your vote by granting a new proxy bearing a later date (which automatically revokes the earlier proxy), by providing a written notice of revocation to the Corporate Secretary at the address below in Question 30 prior to your shares being voted, or by attending the annual meeting and voting in person.

If you own common stock of record, you may revoke your proxy or change your voting instructions at any time before your shares are voted at the Annual Meeting by delivering to the Secretary of Amazon.com, Inc. a written notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy (via the Internet, mobile device, or telephone or by returning a proxy card) bearing a later date or by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

If your shares are held in street name, you should contact your bank or broker and follow its procedures for changing your voting instructions.

Following the SNAP IPO, two major index providers, S&P and FTSE, announced changes in their rules regarding firms that issue multiple voting shares.

If you own common stock of record, you may revoke your proxy or change your voting instructions at any time before your shares are voted at the Annual Meeting by delivering to the Secretary of Amazon.com, Inc. a written notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy (via the Internet or telephone or by returning a proxy card) bearing a later date or by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

For shares you hold beneficially in the name of a broker, trustee or other nominee, you may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions to your broker, trustee or nominee, or, if you have obtained a legal proxy from your broker or nominee giving you the right to vote your shares, by attending the meeting and voting in person.

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.

Democrats are hopeful Eachus could net a victory this time given the changing demographics of the district and his 48 percent share of the vote, despite being outspent to 3 - to - 1.

It is known that people tend to overestimate the share of immigrants (for instance Ipsos 2014 report shows that British respondents think that 31 per cent of population consists of foreign - born respondents, where the figure is closer to 13 per cent according to 2011 Census); here we also show that people's estimations of levels of immigration do not correspond to actual change in their local areas, it is the perception that seems to be linked with anti-immigration vote.

As we can see, the hypothesis that UKIP vote is driven by experience of change in the local area can be rejected — in fact Pearson correlations between UKIP vote and increases in the share of each immigrant group are negative.

Continue reading Unraveling the 2014 local election changes in the share of the vote: who suffered most from UKIP?

Comparing the first - past - the - post share of the vote from 2011 with the share of the first preference votes this year in the BBC Key Wards the overall changes were Con -0.7, Lab +1.6, LD -1.0, and SNP -12.2.

This is quite hard to tell the pattern of vote switching from one party to another from the aggregate ward - level data alone because of the well known ecological inference problem, but some insights can be gleaned from the pattern of correlations in the changes in party shares.

If the changes in vote share since 2010 implied by the YouGov poll were to be replicated everywhere, the SNP would win 54 seats, Labour 4 and the Liberal Democrats one (unlike YouGov and The Times I project the Tories to lose Dumfriesshire under this assumption).

It is important to see the change in the Conservative vote share in the context of the longer term trend: though the Tory figures have moved around more than those of other parties in the ANP, they have been around 30 %, within the margin of error, for eight weeks, while Labour remain firmly in the mid-30s.

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.

In BBC Keywards fought by all four parties, the correlation between the change in the UKIP share of the vote since 2010 and that for the Conservatives was very similar to that between UKIP and Labour: both close to -0.3.

In order to address the question, I estimate what the party first preference votes would be in the different constituencies, assuming similar (proportional) changes in party vote shares in all constituencies to those that are being suggested by a particular opinion poll, or — in this case — an average of the most recent polls.

Israel has a closed list proportional representation electoral system with a single nationwide constituency so, apart from the 3.25 % threshold, changes in seats are pretty much perfectly sensitive to the changes in the share of the vote.

This is clearly one of those cases where the net changes in the share of the vote can be misleading.

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 the Conservatives one point ahead of the Liberal Democrats in terms of vote share, with Labour four points further adrift.

The Political Forecasting Unit's «election barometer», designed to capture the changing state of the race as it unfolds through the campaign, shows the Conservatives on top in terms of vote share, but Labour leading in terms of projected seats, despite trailing last or joint last in terms of vote share.

Rep. John Katko says he has concerns about the plan, which he has shared with the House leadership, and believes the final version will have changed significantly before it comes up for a vote.

BY PAUL SCHINDLER As the State Senate slogged through its last scheduled day in its 2014 session, a member of the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) that shares majority power with the Republicans, voiced hope that a measure to bar mental health professionals from performing «sexual orientation change efforts» on minors could yet get a floor vote.

They want to be a force of change that backs candidates who share their beliefs - not a third party that could split votes and benefit Democratic candidates.

By Chris Cillizza July 3, 2009; 11:40 AM ET Categories: Republican Party Save & Share: Previous: Liberal Groups Defend Climate Change Vote Next: The Case Against Richard Nixon

This column shows the change in vote share percentage from the 2010 general election to the 2015 general election.

The file comprises the 2015 election results for each constituency (winning party, vote share, number of votes, turnout, majority and changes in vote share since 2010), the 2010 results (winning party,...

As with previous versions, the file comprises the 2015 election results for each constituency (winning party, vote share, number of votes, turnout, majority and changes in vote share since 2010), the 2010 results (winning party, vote share, number of votes, turnout and majority), and contextual information at the constituency level:

The graph below shows how their net performance since 2010 varies according the change in the UKIP share of the vote since 2010.

The two main parties are in the low 30s in the polls now in large part because of UKIP, but uniform change still seems to provide a reasonable guide as to how those overall vote shares translate into seats among key Con - Lab and Lab - Con marginals in England and Wales.

Table 2 shows that the changes in each party's vote share were similar across all four categories.

The change from the last poll is well within the margin of error and, if repeated at a general election, these shares of the vote would still give Labour an overall majority.

The first thing is to look at what the shares of the vote were in those seats at the previous election — without knowing that, any swing or change is meaningless.

But it looks like that just didn't happen - in Worcester, Labour's share of the vote barely changed.

This constituency underwent boundary changes between the 1992 and 1997 general elections and thus change in share of vote is based on a notional calculation.

It is thought to be unlikely to give the public a formal say through a share of the votes or American - style primaries, which would require a change of rules and delay the contest.

The Labour vote fragmenting is becoming a bit of a pattern though, reminiscent of what happened to the Lib Dems in 2015, giving the Tories a bunch of seats without much change in vote share.

I don't expect major changes in national vote share in 2020 necessarily but we could see UKIP still around 10 - 15 %, losing votes to the Tories in marginal seats but profiting from a post referendum backlash at the Tories expense in Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire etc and old labour areas like Sunderland, county Durham, Rotherham, Oldham etc which the Tories have abandoned.

Moreover, the researchers argue that exposure would only have changed vote shares in the order of hundredths of a percentage point.