{"pre_text": ["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: ."], "post_text": ["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. ."], "table": [["for", "against", "abstained", "broker non-votes"], ["17695228", "963202", "155213", "0"]], "table_ori": [["For", "Against", "Abstained", "Broker Non-Votes"], ["17,695,228", "963,202", "155,213", "0"]]}

Question: what portion of the votes support the proposal?
Evidence:
table_1: for the 17695228 of against is 963202 ; the 17695228 of abstained is 155213 ; the 17695228 of broker non-votes is 0 ;
Program: table_sum(17695228, 963202), add(#0, 155213), divide(17695228, #1)
Answer:
str_answer: 94.1%
exe_answer: 13.89356