← Gravesham (all cycles) · 4 May 2023 cohort
Gravesham 2023
Local elections held 4 May 2023.
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 17 wards in this cycle, parties received the vote totals below. The proportional column shows what each party would have won if the 39 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.
| Party | Votes | Vote % | Seats won | % of seats | Proportional seats | Proportional % | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative Party | 24,102 | 47.7% | 17 | 43.6% | 19 | 48.7% | -2 |
| Labour Party | 23,654 | 46.9% | 22 | 56.4% | 19 | 48.7% | +3 |
| Liberal Democrats | 1,395 | 2.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 2.6% | -1 |
| Green Party | 1,011 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Reform UK | 320 | 0.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Total | 50,482 | 100.0% | 39 | 100.0% | 39 | 100.0% | 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.
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.
Wards in this council
Sorted with the largest gap below the quota first. Click any ward to jump to its full result.
- Meopham South and Vigo · 2 seats · won at 49.7% · above quota
- Painters Ash · 2 seats · won at 49.8% · above quota
- Chalk · 1 seat · won at 70.6% · above quota
- Singlewell · 2 seats · won at 55.5% · above quota
- Westcourt · 2 seats · won at 55.7% · above quota
- Woodlands · 3 seats · won at 47.8% · above quota
- Meopham North · 2 seats · won at 57.2% · above quota
- Whitehill and Windmill Hill · 3 seats · won at 50.1% · above quota
- Northfleet and Springhead · 3 seats · won at 53.1% · above quota
- Riverview Park · 2 seats · won at 62.8% · above quota
- Istead Rise, Cobham and Luddesdown · 2 seats · won at 64.3% · above quota
- Pelham · 2 seats · won at 67.1% · above quota
- Denton · 2 seats · won at 67.4% · above quota
- Town · 3 seats · won at 61.1% · above quota
- Higham and Shorne · 3 seats · won at 66.0% · above quota
- Coldharbour and Perry Street · 3 seats · won at 66.5% · above quota
- Rosherville · 2 seats · won at 77.6% · above quota
Race results
Meopham South and Vigo · 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. 49.7% 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. 1,289
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aslam, M. | Conservative Party | 696 | 27.0% | 54.0% | +20.7 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Bains, G. | Conservative Party | 641 | 24.9% | 49.7% | +16.4 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Banks, R. | Liberal Democrats | 448 | 17.4% | 34.8% | — | |
| 4 | Black, D. | Liberal Democrats | 339 | 13.2% | 26.3% | — | |
| 5 | Saygili, C. | Labour Party | 168 | 6.5% | 13.0% | — | |
| 6 | Divall, K. | Labour Party | 156 | 6.1% | 12.1% | — | |
| 7 | Scott, D. | Green Party | 129 | 5.0% | 10.0% | — |
Painters Ash · 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. +16.5 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,411
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elliott, E. | Conservative Party | 761 | 27.0% | 54.0% | +20.6 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Ridgers, A. | Conservative Party | 703 | 24.9% | 49.8% | +16.5 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Halpin, R. | Labour Party | 688 | 24.4% | 48.8% | — | |
| 4 | Saluja, G. | Labour Party | 669 | 23.7% | 47.4% | — |
Chalk · single-seat
Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 70.6% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +20.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 701
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hills, L. | Conservative Party | 495 | 70.6% | +20.6 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Baber, D. | Labour Party | 206 | 29.4% | — |
Singlewell · 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. 55.5% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +22.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 901
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | King, D. | Labour Party | 515 | 28.6% | 57.2% | +23.8 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Atwal, R. | Labour Party | 500 | 27.7% | 55.5% | +22.2 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Morton, D. | Conservative Party | 398 | 22.1% | 44.2% | — | |
| 4 | Dodd, S. | Conservative Party | 389 | 21.6% | 43.2% | — |
Westcourt · 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. 55.7% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +22.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 855
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | O'Malley, K. | Labour Party | 527 | 30.8% | 61.7% | +28.3 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Rolles, L. | Labour Party | 476 | 27.9% | 55.7% | +22.4 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Hatch, H. | Conservative Party | 359 | 21.0% | 42.0% | — | |
| 4 | Allen, K. | Conservative Party | 347 | 20.3% | 40.6% | — |
Woodlands · 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. 47.8% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +22.8 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,758
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beattie, D. | Conservative Party | 894 | 17.0% | 50.9% | +25.9 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Metcalf, A. | Conservative Party | 874 | 16.6% | 49.7% | +24.7 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Sizer, B. | Conservative Party | 840 | 15.9% | 47.8% | +22.8 pts | Elected |
| 4 | Cook, T. | Labour Party | 719 | 13.6% | 40.9% | — | |
| 5 | Francis, B. | Labour Party | 693 | 13.1% | 39.4% | — | |
| 6 | Duddridge, R. | Labour Party | 675 | 12.8% | 38.4% | — | |
| 7 | Gill, A. | Green Party | 224 | 4.2% | 12.7% | — | |
| 8 | Mathur, A. | Liberal Democrats | 125 | 2.4% | 7.1% | — | |
| 9 | Virk, S. | Liberal Democrats | 117 | 2.2% | 6.7% | — | |
| 10 | Obasi, U. | Liberal Democrats | 113 | 2.1% | 6.4% | — |
Meopham North · 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. 57.2% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +23.8 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,001
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Harding, G. | Conservative Party | 629 | 31.4% | 62.9% | +29.5 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Wardle, F. | Conservative Party | 572 | 28.6% | 57.2% | +23.8 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Christie, D. | Labour Party | 272 | 13.6% | 27.2% | — | |
| 4 | Death, J. | Liberal Democrats | 253 | 12.6% | 25.3% | — | |
| 5 | Webb, E. | Labour Party | 158 | 7.9% | 15.8% | — | |
| 6 | Sturley, G. | Reform UK | 117 | 5.8% | 11.7% | — |
Whitehill and Windmill Hill · 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. 50.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +25.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,998
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Larkins, G. | Labour Party | 1,061 | 17.7% | 53.1% | +28.1 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Rana, B. | Labour Party | 1,052 | 17.6% | 52.7% | +27.7 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Thandi, E. | Labour Party | 1,000 | 16.7% | 50.1% | +25.1 pts | Elected |
| 4 | Hoskins, L. | Conservative Party | 991 | 16.5% | 49.6% | — | |
| 5 | Wenban, M. | Conservative Party | 974 | 16.2% | 48.7% | — | |
| 6 | Panda, P. | Conservative Party | 916 | 15.3% | 45.8% | — |
Northfleet and Springhead · 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. 53.1% Proportional quota 25.0% 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 ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,240
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hart, J. | Labour Party | 705 | 18.9% | 56.8% | +31.8 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Scollard, P. | Labour Party | 674 | 18.1% | 54.3% | +29.3 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Williams, A. | Labour Party | 659 | 17.7% | 53.1% | +28.1 pts | Elected |
| 4 | Broadley, C. | Conservative Party | 590 | 15.9% | 47.6% | — | |
| 5 | Briah, B. | Conservative Party | 576 | 15.5% | 46.4% | — | |
| 6 | Hatch, J. | Conservative Party | 517 | 13.9% | 41.7% | — |
Riverview Park · 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. 62.8% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +29.5 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,207
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ashenden, D. | Conservative Party | 760 | 31.5% | 63.0% | +29.7 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Elliott, A. | Conservative Party | 758 | 31.4% | 62.8% | +29.5 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Fletcher, S. | Labour Party | 389 | 16.1% | 32.2% | — | |
| 4 | Archell, B. | Labour Party | 379 | 15.7% | 31.4% | — | |
| 5 | Wilson, M. | Green Party | 127 | 5.3% | 10.5% | — |
Istead Rise, Cobham and Luddesdown · 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. 64.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +30.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,396
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dibben, D. | Conservative Party | 1,142 | 40.9% | 81.8% | +48.5 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Jassal, S. | Conservative Party | 897 | 32.1% | 64.3% | +30.9 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Atkinson, L. | Labour Party | 385 | 13.8% | 27.6% | — | |
| 4 | Williams, M. | Labour Party | 368 | 13.2% | 26.4% | — |
Pelham · 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. 67.1% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +33.8 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,167
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Morley, E. | Labour Party | 800 | 34.3% | 68.6% | +35.2 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Hayre, B. | Labour Party | 783 | 33.6% | 67.1% | +33.8 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Shakespeare Frost, H. | Conservative Party | 290 | 12.4% | 24.9% | — | |
| 4 | Pritchard, B. | Conservative Party | 269 | 11.5% | 23.1% | — | |
| 5 | Prior, M. | Green Party | 191 | 8.2% | 16.4% | — |
Denton · 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. 67.4% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +34.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 747
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Croxton, D. | Labour Party | 524 | 35.1% | 70.2% | +36.9 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Croxton, L. | Labour Party | 503 | 33.7% | 67.4% | +34.0 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Dibben, I. | Conservative Party | 240 | 16.1% | 32.2% | — | |
| 4 | King, S. | Conservative Party | 226 | 15.1% | 30.3% | — |
Town · 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. 61.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +36.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,344
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bungar, G. | Labour Party | 868 | 21.5% | 64.6% | +39.6 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Milner, L. | Labour Party | 841 | 20.9% | 62.6% | +37.6 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Wallace, J. | Labour Party | 821 | 20.4% | 61.1% | +36.1 pts | Elected |
| 4 | O'Keeffe, T. | Conservative Party | 460 | 11.4% | 34.2% | — | |
| 5 | Smith, I. | Conservative Party | 436 | 10.8% | 32.4% | — | |
| 6 | Khan, M. | Conservative Party | 402 | 10.0% | 29.9% | — | |
| 7 | Moat, M. | Reform UK | 123 | 3.1% | 9.2% | — | |
| 8 | Dabin, D. | Reform UK | 80 | 2.0% | 6.0% | — |
Higham and Shorne · 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. 66.0% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +41.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,629
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pearton, L. | Conservative Party | 1,114 | 22.8% | 68.4% | +43.4 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Ashenden, H. | Conservative Party | 1,112 | 22.8% | 68.3% | +43.3 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Meade, J. | Conservative Party | 1,075 | 22.0% | 66.0% | +41.0 pts | Elected |
| 4 | Bains, S. | Labour Party | 447 | 9.1% | 27.4% | — | |
| 5 | Lima, Y. | Labour Party | 427 | 8.7% | 26.2% | — | |
| 6 | Sangha, B. | Labour Party | 372 | 7.6% | 22.8% | — | |
| 7 | Prior, J. | Green Party | 340 | 7.0% | 20.9% | — |
Coldharbour and Perry Street · 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. 66.5% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +41.5 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,433
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mochrie-Cox, S. | Labour Party | 972 | 22.6% | 67.8% | +42.8 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Rolles, C. | Labour Party | 957 | 22.3% | 66.8% | +41.8 pts | Elected |
| 3 | Thandi, N. | Labour Party | 953 | 22.2% | 66.5% | +41.5 pts | Elected |
| 4 | Black, J. | Conservative Party | 485 | 11.3% | 33.8% | — | |
| 5 | Harding, B. | Conservative Party | 481 | 11.2% | 33.6% | — | |
| 6 | White, G. | Conservative Party | 451 | 10.5% | 31.5% | — |
Rosherville · 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. 77.6% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +44.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 817
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 →
| Rank | Candidate | Party | Votes | Share 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Burden, J. | Labour Party | 658 | 40.3% | 80.5% | +47.2 pts | Elected |
| 2 | Sullivan, L. | Labour Party | 634 | 38.8% | 77.6% | +44.3 pts | Elected |
| 3 | McTavish, J. | Conservative Party | 175 | 10.7% | 21.4% | — | |
| 4 | Pritchard, A. | Conservative Party | 167 | 10.2% | 20.4% | — |