Amber Valley: New Boundaries Calculation

Due to changes in ward boundaries, some new wards are divided among several old constituencies (though never between two new constituencies). Such wards are shown divided into several parts, called [1], [2], and so on.

Election results from a recent local election are given. This is usually the local election from 2003, 2004 or 2006. For multiple-member wards, the votes shown are the sum of the votes cast for all candidates of each party. A negative number indicates candidate(s) elected unopposed. Where zero votes are shown, the ward is not needed because the entire old seat is unsplit.

Calculation method: There are two problems with using the raw (actual) local election results to imply general election results ward-by-ward. Firstly, turnout can be different between local and general elections, which means that the total number of local votes cast does not equal the number of votes cast in each old seat at the general election. To correct for this, we adjust the local votes to match the general election turnout. Each ward's result is scaled, whilst keeping constant the percentage support for each party, so that the total turnout adds up to the old seat's general election turnout. All wards in the old seat are assumed to have the same percentage turnout.

Secondly, even though we now have the correct number of votes in the old seat, the party totals will not match the general election result. Some parties do better at the local election than the general election, and others do vice versa. We call these strong and weak parties respectively. The next step is to transfer votes from strong parties to weak parties. This is done by taking votes proportionally away from strong parties and putting them in a transfer pool. For instance if a party got 12,500 local votes, but only 10,000 general election votes, it will lose 20% of its votes from each ward. These votes in each ward will be put in the ward's transfer pool and allocated to the weak parties. Weak parties will get votes transferred to them in proportion to the votes they need over the old seat. For instance, if two weak parties need 4,000 and 1,000 votes respectively, the first party will get 80% of each ward's transfer pool and the second party will get 20% of each ward's transfer pool. The transfer of votes between parties is done on a ward-by-ward basis using these common percentages.

More details of the calculation formulas are available.

The old seat(s) needed are:

• Amber Valley

Old seat: Amber Valley

					Actual Results				Turnout-adjusted Results					Transfer-adjusted Results
District	Ward	Electorate 2005	Old Seat	New Seat	CON Votes	LAB Votes	LIB Votes	OTH Votes	CON Votes	LAB Votes	LIB Votes	OTH Votes	Total Votes	CON Votes	LAB Votes	LIB Votes	OTH Votes	Total Votes
Amber Valley	Alfreton	6,315	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	564	1,044	264	0	1,201	2,224	562	0	3,987	946	2,342	607	91	3,987
Amber Valley	Codnor and Waingroves	3,982	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	424	676	183	0	831	1,325	359	0	2,515	654	1,406	390	63	2,515
Amber Valley	Crich	1,986	Amber Valley	Derbyshire Dales	450	134	132	0	788	235	231	0	1,254	620	312	260	60	1,254
Amber Valley	Heage and Ambergate	3,958	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	934	578	406	0	1,217	753	529	0	2,499	958	872	574	92	2,499
Amber Valley	Heanor and Loscoe	4,069	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	327	731	103	524	499	1,115	157	799	2,570	393	1,164	175	837	2,570
Amber Valley	Heanor East	4,436	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	468	567	242	0	1,027	1,244	531	0	2,802	809	1,344	569	78	2,802
Amber Valley	Heanor West	4,453	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	273	607	427	592	404	899	632	877	2,812	318	938	647	907	2,812
Amber Valley	Ironville and Riddings	4,618	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	660	700	194	0	1,238	1,314	364	0	2,916	975	1,435	410	94	2,916
Amber Valley	Kilburn, Denby and Holbrook	6,139	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,396	811	0	0	2,452	1,424	0	0	3,876	1,931	1,665	92	186	3,876
Amber Valley	Langley Mill and Aldercar	3,967	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	343	472	154	0	887	1,220	398	0	2,505	698	1,307	431	67	2,505
Amber Valley	Ripley	6,724	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,042	794	322	0	2,050	1,562	634	0	4,246	1,615	1,763	711	156	4,246
Amber Valley	Ripley and Marehay	4,563	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	972	941	0	0	1,464	1,417	0	0	2,881	1,153	1,560	54	111	2,881
Amber Valley	Shipley Park, Horsley and Horsley Woodhouse	4,553	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,115	790	0	0	1,683	1,192	0	0	2,875	1,326	1,357	63	128	2,875
Amber Valley	Somercotes	4,514	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	454	784	0	0	1,045	1,805	0	0	2,850	823	1,907	39	79	2,850
Amber Valley	Swanwick	4,338	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	983	389	220	0	1,691	669	379	0	2,739	1,332	835	442	128	2,739
Amber Valley	Wingfield	1,868	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	635	187	0	0	911	268	0	0	1,179	717	357	34	69	1,179
Erewash	Little Eaton and Breadsall	2,856	Amber Valley	Derbyshire Mid	1,002	204	715	0	941	192	671	0	1,804	741	284	706	71	1,804
Erewash	Stanley	1,711	Amber Valley	Derbyshire Mid	208	381	0	0	382	699	0	0	1,081	300	736	14	29	1,081
	Total		Amber Valley						20,711	19,557	5,447	1,676	47,391	16,318	21,593	6,225	3,254	47,391

The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Amber Valley at the general election, as well as the total local turnout-adjusted votes. The number of votes to transfer, shown in the fourth and fifth columns, are the difference between the general and local votes. Strong parties will have votes transferred away, and weak parties will have votes transferred into them. The final column describes how votes will be transferred away from or into that party on a ward-by-ward basis. If a party is too strong, it will lose a percentage of its votes in each ward which go into that ward's transfer pool. If a party is too weak, it will gain votes from each ward's transfer pool in proportion to the number of transfer votes it needs over the whole old seat.

Party	General Election 2005 Votes	Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes	Votes to transfer away	Votes to transfer into	Ward Transfers needed
CON	16,318	20,711	4,393	0	Transfer away 21.2% (= 4393 / 20711) of ward's CON votes
LAB	21,593	19,557	0	2,036	Transfer in 46.3% (= 2036 / 4393) of ward's transfer pool votes
LIB	6,225	5,447	0	778	Transfer in 17.7% (= 778 / 4393) of ward's transfer pool votes
OTH	3,255	1,676	0	1,579	Transfer in 35.9% (= 1579 / 4393) of ward's transfer pool votes
Total	47,391	47,391	4,393	4,393

After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.

New seat: Amber Valley

District	Ward	Electorate 2005	Old Seat	New Seat	CON Votes	LAB Votes	LIB Votes	OTH Votes	Total Votes
Amber Valley	Alfreton	6,315	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	946	2,342	607	91	3,987
Amber Valley	Codnor and Waingroves	3,982	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	654	1,406	390	63	2,515
Amber Valley	Heage and Ambergate	3,958	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	958	872	574	92	2,499
Amber Valley	Heanor East	4,436	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	809	1,344	569	78	2,802
Amber Valley	Heanor West	4,453	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	318	938	647	907	2,812
Amber Valley	Heanor and Loscoe	4,069	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	393	1,164	175	837	2,570
Amber Valley	Ironville and Riddings	4,618	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	975	1,435	410	94	2,916
Amber Valley	Kilburn, Denby and Holbrook	6,139	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,931	1,665	92	186	3,876
Amber Valley	Langley Mill and Aldercar	3,967	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	698	1,307	431	67	2,505
Amber Valley	Ripley and Marehay	4,563	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,153	1,560	54	111	2,881
Amber Valley	Ripley	6,724	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,615	1,763	711	156	4,246
Amber Valley	Shipley Park, Horsley and Horsley Woodhouse	4,553	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,326	1,357	63	128	2,875
Amber Valley	Somercotes	4,514	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	823	1,907	39	79	2,850
Amber Valley	Swanwick	4,338	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	1,332	835	442	128	2,739
Amber Valley	Wingfield	1,868	Amber Valley	Amber Valley	717	357	34	69	1,179
	Total			Amber Valley	14,654	20,259	5,243	3,094	43,252

And these are the implied results for 2005 for the new seat of Amber Valley.