← Boston (all cycles) · 4 May 2023 cohort

Boston 2023

Local elections held 4 May 2023.

15 ward races
30 seats
1 elected below the proportional quota
3.3% of seats below quota
5 unfairly awarded seats
16.7% of seats unfairly awarded

Each race compares the marginal winner's share of valid ballots to the proportional quota — the share they'd need under any common proportional method. How the numbers are derived →

If votes were counted by party

Across the 15 wards in this cycle, parties received the vote totals below. The proportional column shows what each party would have won if the 30 seats had been shared out in proportion to votes received (how, with caveats). The Δ column is the actual seat count minus the proportional seat count — positive numbers are parties First-Past-the-Post over-represented; negative are parties it under-represented.

PartyVotesVote %Seats won% of seatsProportional seatsProportional %Δ
BOST IND10,89645.3%1860.0%1446.7%+4
Conservative Party7,01329.1%516.7%930.0%-4
Independent2,94112.2%516.7%413.3%+1
Liberal Democrats1,4806.1%13.3%26.7%-1
BLUE REV9544.0%13.3%13.3%0
Labour Party4551.9%00.0%00.0%0
Green Party2170.9%00.0%00.0%0
ENG DEM750.3%00.0%00.0%0
Reform UK430.2%00.0%00.0%0
Total24,074100.0%30100.0%30100.0%0

Vote share vs seats won

The top bar is each party's share of votes cast in this council. Below, one square per seat, coloured by the party that won it — first the actual First-Past-the-Post result, then what a proportional method would have produced from the same vote totals. Divergence between the bar and the actual grid is the indictment of the method.

Vote share
Actual seats
Proportional seats

Council composition: what this election replaced

The 2023 cycle was an all-out election — every seat was contested. The two opencouncildata snapshots below show the council immediately after the 2023 election (current) and on the eve of it (2022), so you can see what the result replaced.

Current (2023)
Previous (2022)

Wards in this council

Sorted with the largest gap below the quota first. Click any ward to jump to its full result.

Race results

Station · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 37.4% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. −12.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 262

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Savickiene, L.BOST IND9837.4%−12.6 ptsElected
2Lee, G.BLUE REV8934.0%
3Vickery, A.Conservative Party7528.6%

Electorate 1,405 · Back to ward index

St Thomas' · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 52.9% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +2.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 444

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Austin, A.Independent23552.9%+2.9 ptsElected
2Bashir, S.BOST IND14632.9%
3Abbott, D.Independent388.6%
4Cook, A.Labour Party255.6%

Electorate 1,813 · Back to ward index

Wyberton · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 36.9% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +3.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 826

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Austin, R.Independent42325.6%51.2%+17.9 ptsElected
2Mountain, C.BOST IND30518.5%36.9%+3.6 ptsElected
3Gibbons, R.BOST IND26816.2%32.5%
4Elms, A.Conservative Party25015.1%30.3%
5Ransome, S.Independent18311.1%22.2%
6Stevenson, J.Liberal Democrats835.0%10.1%
7Halderson, C.BLUE REV734.4%8.8%
8Watson, S.Liberal Democrats664.0%8.0%

Electorate 3,730 · Back to ward index

Kirton and Frampton · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 34.2% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +9.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,246

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Rylott, C.Conservative Party51113.7%41.0%+16.0 ptsElected
2Pryke, R.Liberal Democrats43511.6%34.9%+9.9 ptsElected
3Middleton, D.BOST IND42611.4%34.2%+9.2 ptsElected
4Watson, P.Liberal Democrats42011.2%33.7%
5Kumar, M.BOST IND42011.2%33.7%
6Abbott, T.Conservative Party41011.0%32.9%
7Agarwal, D.BOST IND40710.9%32.7%
8O'Connor, L.Liberal Democrats3569.5%28.6%
9MacLennan-James, L.Conservative Party3529.4%28.3%

Electorate 5,399 · Back to ward index

Fenside · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 44.6% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +11.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 469

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Marson, P.BOST IND30832.9%65.7%+32.4 ptsElected
2Dani, A.Conservative Party20922.3%44.6%+11.3 ptsElected
3Cook, B.Labour Party19620.9%41.8%
4Wainwright, P.Independent11512.3%24.5%
5Broomfield-Douglas, C.BLUE REV10911.6%23.3%

Electorate 3,229 · Back to ward index

Trinity · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 45.0% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +11.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 847

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Cresswell, E.BOST IND46027.2%54.3%+21.0 ptsElected
2Arayambath, J.BOST IND38122.5%45.0%+11.7 ptsElected
3Stevens, Y.Conservative Party38022.4%44.9%
4Griggs, M.Conservative Party34320.3%40.5%
5Dorrington, C.BLUE REV1297.6%15.2%

Electorate 3,286 · Back to ward index

Staniland · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 49.0% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +15.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 537

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Pierpoint, B.BOST IND35232.8%65.5%+32.2 ptsElected
2Gilbert, M.BLUE REV26324.5%49.0%+15.6 ptsElected
3Barnes, M.Conservative Party23021.4%42.8%
4Evans, D.Conservative Party22921.3%42.6%

Electorate 2,855 · Back to ward index

Coastal · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 49.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 787

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Broughton, D.BOST IND60538.4%76.9%+43.5 ptsElected
2Bedford, P.Independent38824.7%49.3%+16.0 ptsElected
3Welbourn, J.Independent32620.7%41.4%
4Blackburn, S.Conservative Party25516.2%32.4%

Electorate 2,897 · Back to ward index

Witham · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 50.2% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.8 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 550

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Izard, A.BOST IND34931.7%63.5%+30.1 ptsElected
2Ghosh, S.BOST IND27625.1%50.2%+16.8 ptsElected
3Dani, M.Conservative Party21119.2%38.4%
4Keal, A.BLUE REV11410.4%20.7%
5Hastie, N.Independent877.9%15.8%
6Thornalley, R.BLUE REV635.7%11.5%

Electorate 3,022 · Back to ward index

Old Leake and Wrangle · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 54.1% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +20.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 871

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Butler, C.BOST IND56632.5%65.0%+31.6 ptsElected
2Baxter, J.BOST IND47127.0%54.1%+20.7 ptsElected
3Ashton, T.Conservative Party29617.0%34.0%
4Pickett, F.Conservative Party1277.3%14.6%
5Hill, R.Independent854.9%9.8%
6Litchfield, M.Independent794.5%9.1%
7Dickason, D.ENG DEM754.3%8.6%
8Hume, M.Reform UK432.5%4.9%

Electorate 2,834 · Back to ward index

West · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 72.1% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +22.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 527

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Woodliffe, S.Independent38072.1%+22.1 ptsElected
2Ashleigh-Morris, P.Conservative Party14727.9%

Electorate 1,747 · Back to ward index

Skirbeck · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 49.7% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +24.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 695

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Dorrian, A.BOST IND56227.0%80.9%+55.9 ptsElected
2Drayton, N.BOST IND50124.0%72.1%+47.1 ptsElected
3Gleeson, P.Independent34516.6%49.7%+24.7 ptsElected
4Chalmers, K.Conservative Party29214.0%42.0%
5Kondratcik, D.BOST IND26412.7%38.0%
6Stasiukenas, C.Liberal Democrats1205.8%17.3%

Electorate 5,019 · Back to ward index

Five Village · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 59.0% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +25.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 757

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Cantwell, J.Conservative Party45329.9%59.9%+26.5 ptsElected
2Brown, D.Conservative Party44629.5%59.0%+25.6 ptsElected
3Reid, G.BOST IND35723.6%47.2%
4Spencer, A.Independent25717.0%34.0%

Electorate 3,147 · Back to ward index

Swineshead and Holland Fen · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 61.4% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +28.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 772

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Welberry, S.BOST IND72246.8%93.5%+60.2 ptsElected
2Evans, S.Conservative Party47430.7%61.4%+28.1 ptsElected
3Pomfret, T.Labour Party23415.2%30.3%
4Gilbert, T.BLUE REV1147.4%14.8%

Electorate 3,340 · Back to ward index

Fishtoft · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 57.3% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +32.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,397

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Staples, H.BOST IND95222.7%68.1%+43.1 ptsElected
2Sharpe, S.BOST IND90021.5%64.4%+39.4 ptsElected
3Scoot, D.BOST IND80019.1%57.3%+32.3 ptsElected
4Noble, J.Conservative Party47311.3%33.9%
5Skinner, J.Conservative Party45310.8%32.4%
6Skinner, P.Conservative Party3979.5%28.4%
7Moore, C.Green Party2175.2%15.5%

Electorate 5,450 · Back to ward index