← Chelmsford (all cycles) · 4 May 2023 cohort

Chelmsford 2023

Local elections held 4 May 2023.

24 ward races
57 seats
9 unfairly awarded seats
15.8% 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 24 wards in this cycle, parties received the vote totals below. The proportional column shows what each party would have won if the 57 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
Liberal Democrats39,56741.5%3357.9%2543.9%+8
Conservative Party37,77139.6%2136.8%2340.4%-2
Labour Party9,0109.4%00.0%58.8%-5
Green Party2,4452.6%00.0%11.8%-1
Independent2,2202.3%23.5%11.8%+1
SWFCTA2,0032.1%00.0%11.8%-1
Independent Network1,8912.0%11.8%11.8%0
Heritage Party1930.2%00.0%00.0%0
UK Independence Party (UKIP)1780.2%00.0%00.0%0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition850.1%00.0%00.0%0
Total95,363100.0%57100.0%57100.0%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

Galleywood · 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. 43.2% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +9.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,278

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
1Potter, J.Conservative Party74029.0%57.9%+24.6 ptsElected
2Hyland, R.Independent Network55221.6%43.2%+9.9 ptsElected
3Chambers, A.Conservative Party53020.7%41.5%
4Gale, I.Liberal Democrats2138.3%16.7%
5Hay, K.Liberal Democrats1807.0%14.1%
6Croft, R.Labour Party1797.0%14.0%
7Haines, A.Labour Party1626.3%12.7%

Electorate 4,168 · Back to ward index

Waterhouse Farm · 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. 43.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +10.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,480

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
1Lardge, J.Liberal Democrats73224.7%49.5%+16.1 ptsElected
2Walsh, N.Liberal Democrats64121.7%43.3%+10.0 ptsElected
3Richards, P.Labour Party49416.7%33.4%
4Sharma, P.Labour Party46715.8%31.6%
5Jeapes, B.Conservative Party33711.4%22.8%
6Smith, G.Conservative Party2889.7%19.5%

Electorate 4,502 · Back to ward index

Broomfield and the Walthams · 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. 35.6% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +10.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,444

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
1Steel, M.Conservative Party1,14815.7%47.0%+22.0 ptsElected
2Wilson, P.Conservative Party88912.1%36.4%+11.4 ptsElected
3Bugbee, N.Liberal Democrats87011.9%35.6%+10.6 ptsElected
4Johnson, D.Liberal Democrats85011.6%34.8%
5Todd, C.Conservative Party84111.5%34.4%
6Udoh, T.Liberal Democrats7169.8%29.3%
7Daden, W.Independent6919.4%28.3%
8Golla, K.Labour Party3574.9%14.6%
9Dixon, P.Labour Party3424.7%14.0%
10Thompson, M.Green Party3334.5%13.6%
11Howell, D.Labour Party2954.0%12.1%

Electorate 7,979 · Back to ward index

Moulsham Lodge · 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. 44.7% 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. 1,548

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
1Goldman, S.Liberal Democrats74224.0%47.9%+14.6 ptsElected
2Thompson, A.Liberal Democrats69122.3%44.7%+11.3 ptsElected
3Gisby, R.Conservative Party67621.8%43.7%
4Smith, J.Conservative Party62520.2%40.4%
5Wright, T.Labour Party1886.1%12.1%
6Young, C.Green Party1735.6%11.2%

Electorate 4,233 · Back to ward index

Marconi · 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. 49.8% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,268

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
1Deakin, J.Liberal Democrats77130.4%60.8%+27.5 ptsElected
2Rajesh, S.Liberal Democrats63124.9%49.8%+16.4 ptsElected
3Scott, J.Conservative Party28311.2%22.3%
4Bishop, P.Labour Party27310.8%21.5%
5Bartlett, R.Green Party1927.6%15.1%
6Legg, J.Labour Party1777.0%14.0%
7Daines, K.Independent Network1244.9%9.8%
8O'Donnell, A.Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition853.4%6.7%

Electorate 5,495 · Back to ward index

Rettendon and Runwell · 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. 50.8% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +17.5 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,436

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
1Clark, P.Independent80027.9%55.7%+22.4 ptsElected
2Davis, S.Independent72925.4%50.8%+17.5 ptsElected
3Knight, J.Conservative Party54519.0%38.0%
4Phillips, D.Conservative Party53418.6%37.2%
5Waterhouse, Y.Labour Party1424.9%9.9%
6Goldfinch, J.Liberal Democrats732.5%5.1%
7Pennicard, R.Liberal Democrats481.7%3.3%

Electorate 4,958 · Back to ward index

South Woodham-Elmwood and Woodville · 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. 42.5% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +17.5 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,239

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
1Eley, D.Liberal Democrats61816.6%49.9%+24.9 ptsElected
2Sherlock, T.Liberal Democrats58215.7%47.0%+22.0 ptsElected
3O'Brien, M.Conservative Party52714.2%42.5%+17.5 ptsElected
4Bentley, K.SWFCTA51813.9%41.8%
5Roberts, I.SWFCTA46312.5%37.4%
6Davey, D.Liberal Democrats43511.7%35.1%
7Wilson, S.Conservative Party39610.7%32.0%
8Weaver, A.Labour Party1794.8%14.4%

Electorate 5,842 · Back to ward index

The Lawns · 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. 50.9% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +17.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,613

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
1Lee, R.Liberal Democrats85426.5%53.0%+19.6 ptsElected
2Dudley, N.Liberal Democrats82125.5%50.9%+17.6 ptsElected
3Alderman, J.Conservative Party58118.0%36.0%
4Edwards, J.Conservative Party55517.2%34.4%
5Mcdermott, D.Labour Party1695.2%10.5%
6Chadwick, B.Independent Network1273.9%7.9%
7Wotton, L.Green Party1183.7%7.3%

Electorate 4,079 · Back to ward index

Springfield North · 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. 42.7% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +17.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,102

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
1Clark, D.Liberal Democrats94315.0%44.9%+19.9 ptsElected
2Fuller, I.Liberal Democrats92514.7%44.0%+19.0 ptsElected
3Tron, C.Liberal Democrats89714.2%42.7%+17.7 ptsElected
4Hutchinson, P.Conservative Party89314.2%42.5%
5Aluko, E.Conservative Party78112.4%37.2%
6Pioli, J.Conservative Party76712.2%36.5%
7Lovett, M.Independent Network2453.9%11.7%
8Haigh, S.Labour Party2363.7%11.2%
9Kennedy, K.Labour Party2223.5%10.6%
10Kennedy, R.Labour Party2103.3%10.0%
11Hossain, R.Green Party1873.0%8.9%

Electorate 7,493 · Back to ward index

Writtle · 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. 51.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +18.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,460

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
1Thorpe-Apps, A.Conservative Party79627.3%54.5%+21.2 ptsElected
2Knight, B.Conservative Party74925.7%51.3%+18.0 ptsElected
3Loxton, D.Liberal Democrats55218.9%37.8%
4Valdaya, S.Liberal Democrats50717.4%34.7%
5Jordan, R.Green Party1585.4%10.8%
6Massey, S.Labour Party1575.4%10.8%

Electorate 3,839 · Back to ward index

South Woodham-Chetwood and Collingwood · 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. 43.6% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +18.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,224

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
1Massey, B.Conservative Party70819.3%57.8%+32.8 ptsElected
2Sismey, M.Conservative Party65617.9%53.6%+28.6 ptsElected
3John, A.Conservative Party53414.5%43.6%+18.6 ptsElected
4Birch, J.SWFCTA52714.4%43.1%
5Wilson, S.SWFCTA49513.5%40.4%
6Gatenby, J.Labour Party2185.9%17.8%
7Powling, A.Liberal Democrats2055.6%16.7%
8Powling, I.Liberal Democrats1704.6%13.9%
9Regnier-Wilson, M.Liberal Democrats1594.3%13.0%

Electorate 5,886 · Back to ward index

Goat Hall · 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. 52.4% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +19.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,508

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
1Mascot, L.Liberal Democrats84528.0%56.0%+22.7 ptsElected
2Clark, H.Liberal Democrats79026.2%52.4%+19.1 ptsElected
3Garrett, C.Conservative Party52917.5%35.1%
4Spence, Y.Conservative Party48015.9%31.8%
5Chandler, J.Labour Party1454.8%9.6%
6Crook, J.Green Party1224.0%8.1%
7Medici, T.Labour Party1053.5%7.0%

Electorate 4,505 · Back to ward index

Chelmsford Rural West · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 69.3% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +19.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 827

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
1Chambers, N.Conservative Party57369.3%+19.3 ptsElected
2Fenwick, O.Liberal Democrats13516.3%
3Maclean, S.Labour Party11914.4%

Electorate 2,442 · Back to ward index

Chelmer Village and Beaulieu Park · 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. 45.2% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +20.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,396

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
1Moore, R.Liberal Democrats1,17716.4%49.1%+24.1 ptsElected
2Hall, S.Liberal Democrats1,09215.2%45.6%+20.6 ptsElected
3Sullivan, S.Conservative Party1,08315.1%45.2%+20.2 ptsElected
4Gupta, S.Conservative Party1,02614.3%42.8%
5Walker, G.Conservative Party1,02514.3%42.8%
6Jeffreys, D.Liberal Democrats1,02514.3%42.8%
7Dearmer, L.Labour Party3044.2%12.7%
8Sweeney, D.Labour Party2623.6%10.9%
9Schultz, E.Heritage Party1932.7%8.1%

Electorate 7,760 · 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. 53.8% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +20.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,505

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
1Frascona, J.Liberal Democrats88929.5%59.1%+25.7 ptsElected
2Sampson, E.Liberal Democrats80926.9%53.8%+20.4 ptsElected
3Adams, B.Conservative Party56418.7%37.5%
4Kimberlin, D.Conservative Party54318.0%36.1%
5Jones, S.Labour Party2056.8%13.6%

Electorate 4,439 · Back to ward index

Great Baddow West · 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. 54.8% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +21.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,163

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
1Young, S.Liberal Democrats70230.2%60.4%+27.0 ptsElected
2Sosin, J.Liberal Democrats63727.4%54.8%+21.4 ptsElected
3Subramanian, R.Conservative Party51222.0%44.0%
4Graham, A.Independent Network30913.3%26.6%
5Peacock, J.Labour Party1667.1%14.3%

Electorate 4,496 · Back to ward index

Moulsham and Central · 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. 47.1% Proportional quota 25.0% 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 ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,955

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
1Goldman, M.Liberal Democrats1,73719.6%58.8%+33.8 ptsElected
2Adutwim, C.Liberal Democrats1,49116.8%50.5%+25.5 ptsElected
3Pooley, G.Liberal Democrats1,39215.7%47.1%+22.1 ptsElected
4Gisby, K.Conservative Party91410.3%30.9%
5Hall, L.Conservative Party90310.2%30.6%
6Shah, S.Conservative Party8719.8%29.5%
7Kershaw, S.Green Party4745.3%16.0%
8Etheridge, P.Labour Party3854.3%13.0%
9Massey, E.Labour Party3684.2%12.5%
10Parry, R.Labour Party3303.7%11.2%

Electorate 9,180 · Back to ward index

Great Baddow East · 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. 48.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +23.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,724

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
1Franks, K.Liberal Democrats87116.8%50.5%+25.5 ptsElected
2Davey, P.Liberal Democrats86916.8%50.4%+25.4 ptsElected
3Sosin, A.Liberal Democrats82916.0%48.1%+23.1 ptsElected
4McQuiggan, A.Conservative Party67113.0%38.9%
5Springthorpe, C.Conservative Party61711.9%35.8%
6Cordeiro, M.Independent Network53410.3%31.0%
7Wye, L.Green Party3276.3%19.0%
8Hesper, N.Labour Party2755.3%16.0%
9Carter, N.UK Independence Party (UKIP)1783.4%10.3%

Electorate 6,284 · Back to ward index

Boreham and the Leighs · 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. +25.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,134

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
1Raven, J.Conservative Party69730.7%61.5%+28.1 ptsElected
2Canning, V.Conservative Party66929.5%59.0%+25.7 ptsElected
3Beckett, T.Liberal Democrats36616.1%32.3%
4Kurra, J.Liberal Democrats31714.0%28.0%
5Devane, J.Labour Party2199.7%19.3%

Electorate 4,930 · Back to ward index

Patching Hall · 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. 52.6% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +27.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,869

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
1Davidson, C.Liberal Democrats1,10419.7%59.1%+34.1 ptsElected
2Foster, L.Liberal Democrats1,07619.2%57.6%+32.6 ptsElected
3Pappa, V.Conservative Party98417.5%52.6%+27.6 ptsElected
4Holoway, M.Conservative Party92616.5%49.5%
5Manley, S.Liberal Democrats82114.6%43.9%
6Thomson, A.Green Party3616.4%19.3%
7Kenningham-Brown, A.Labour Party3366.0%18.0%

Electorate 6,522 · Back to ward index

Bicknacre and East and West Hanningfield · 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. 64.7% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +31.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,145

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
1Dobson, S.Conservative Party77733.9%67.9%+34.6 ptsElected
2Taylor, M.Conservative Party74032.3%64.7%+31.3 ptsElected
3Wilson, A.Liberal Democrats27912.2%24.4%
4Stevens, R.Liberal Democrats25811.3%22.5%
5Blakemore, M.Labour Party23510.3%20.5%

Electorate 4,010 · Back to ward index

South Hanningfield Stock and Margaretting · 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. 75.0% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +41.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,252

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
1Grundy, I.Conservative Party1,00040.0%79.9%+46.6 ptsElected
2Whitehead, R.Conservative Party93837.5%75.0%+41.6 ptsElected
3Petri, G.Liberal Democrats2218.8%17.7%
4Windhorst, M.Liberal Democrats2058.2%16.4%
5Reilly, M.Labour Party1395.6%11.1%

Electorate 4,362 · Back to ward index

St. Andrews · 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. 67.4% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +42.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,639

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
1Davidson, A.Liberal Democrats1,16123.6%70.9%+45.9 ptsElected
2Robinson, S.Liberal Democrats1,15523.5%70.5%+45.5 ptsElected
3Hawkins, J.Liberal Democrats1,10422.5%67.4%+42.4 ptsElected
4Cousins, P.Conservative Party55511.3%33.9%
5Ahmed, C.Conservative Party3988.1%24.3%
6Francis, M.Labour Party2976.0%18.1%
7Thornley, M.Labour Party2465.0%15.0%

Electorate 6,391 · Back to ward index

Little Baddow Danbury and Sandon · 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. 69.4% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +44.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,063

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
1Scott, S.Conservative Party1,49924.2%72.7%+47.7 ptsElected
2Armstrong, J.Conservative Party1,46623.7%71.1%+46.1 ptsElected
3Jeapes, J.Conservative Party1,43223.1%69.4%+44.4 ptsElected
4Baker, S.Liberal Democrats5088.2%24.6%
5Whiteing, D.Liberal Democrats4557.4%22.1%
6Longford, A.Liberal Democrats4216.8%20.4%
7Capper, S.Labour Party2053.3%9.9%
8Hicks, C.Labour Party2023.3%9.8%

Electorate 6,341 · Back to ward index