Please answer the given financial question based on the context.
Context: leased real property in september 2002 , we completed a sale/leaseback transaction for our 200000 square foot headquarters and manufacturing facility located in bedford , massachusetts and our 62500 square foot lorad manufacturing facility in danbury , connecticut . the lease for these facilities , including the associated land , has a term of 20 years , with four-five year renewal options . we sublease approximately 10000 square feet of the bedford facility to a subtenant , cmp media , under a lease which expires in may 2006 . we also sublease approximately 11000 square feet of the bedford facility to a subtenant , genesys conferencing , under a lease which expires in february we lease a 60000 square feet of office and manufacturing space in danbury , connecticut near our lorad manufacturing facility . this lease expires in december 2012 . we also lease a sales and service office in belgium . item 3 . legal proceedings . in march 2005 , we were served with a complaint filed on november 12 , 2004 by oleg sokolov with the united states district court for the district of connecticut alleging that our htc 2122 grid infringes u.s . patent number 5970118 . the plaintiff is seeking to preliminarily and permanently enjoin us from infringing the patent , as well as damages resulting from the alleged infringement , treble damages and reasonable attorney fees , and such other and further relief as may be available . on april 25 , 2005 , we filed an answer and counterclaims in response to the complaint in which we denied the plaintiff 2019s allegations and , among other things , sought declaratory relief with respect to the patent claims and damages , as well as other relief . on october 28 , 1998 , the plaintiff had previously sued lorad , asserting , among other things , that lorad had misappropriated the plaintiff 2019s trade secrets relating to the htc grid . this previous case was dismissed on august 28 , 2000 . the dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court of the state of connecticut , and the united states supreme court refused to grant certiorari . we do not believe that we infringe any valid or enforceable patents of the plaintiff . however , while we intend to vigorously defend our interests , ongoing litigation can be costly and time consuming , and we cannot guarantee that we will prevail . item 4 . submission of matters to a vote of security holders . at a special meeting of stockholders held november 15 , 2005 , our stockholders approved a proposal to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase the number of shares of common stock the company has authority to issue from 30 million to 90 million . the voting results for the proposal , not adjusted for the effect of the stock split , were as follows: .
|for|against|abstained|broker non-votes|
|17695228|963202|155213|0|
as a result of the amendment , the previously announced two-for-one stock split to be effected as a stock dividend , was paid on november 30 , 2005 to stockholders of record on november 16 , 2005. .
Question: what portion of the votes support the proposal?


Answer: The answer is:13.89356