This page shows the detail of the calculations performed to estimate the general election result for 2010 had the new boundaries for Buckingham been in force at that time. The basic idea of the calculation is to look at the district council wards which make up the new seat, and estimate how they voted in 2010. This estimate is based on the recent local election results in those wards, with adjustments made to allow for different turnouts and different voting patterns for local and general elections.
Due to changes in ward boundaries, some new wards are divided among several old constituencies (and sometimes in Scotland 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 closest to 2010 from the period 2007-2011. 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 results have not yet been acquired, and the implied result is still provisional and will be improved later.
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:
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Aylesbury. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Aylesbury | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Aylesbury Vale | Aston Clinton | 2011 | 7,662 | 6,588 | 0 | 1,745 | 2,122 | 3,259 | 0 | 863 | 1,050 | 5,172 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Aylesbury Central | 2011 | 2,713 | 307 | 253 | 306 | 99 | 583 | 480 | 581 | 188 | 1,832 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Bedgrove | 2011 | 6,887 | 4,336 | 773 | 3,559 | 1,184 | 2,046 | 365 | 1,680 | 559 | 4,650 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Coldharbour | 2011 | 6,710 | 2,395 | 0 | 3,341 | 1,058 | 1,597 | 0 | 2,228 | 705 | 4,530 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Elmhurst and Watermead | 2011 | 6,450 | 2,198 | 418 | 2,532 | 1,323 | 1,479 | 281 | 1,704 | 890 | 4,354 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Gatehouse | 2011 | 4,175 | 630 | 279 | 1,202 | 489 | 683 | 302 | 1,303 | 530 | 2,818 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Mandeville and Elm Farm | 2011 | 6,318 | 4,087 | 0 | 1,498 | 1,528 | 2,451 | 0 | 898 | 916 | 4,265 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Oakfield | 2011 | 3,941 | 850 | 582 | 912 | 657 | 754 | 516 | 809 | 582 | 2,661 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quarrendon [1] | 2011 | 3,839 | 490 | 376 | 621 | 761 | 565 | 433 | 716 | 877 | 2,591 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Southcourt | 2011 | 4,567 | 541 | 841 | 951 | 391 | 612 | 952 | 1,076 | 443 | 3,083 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Walton Court and Hawkslade | 2011 | 4,096 | 680 | 0 | 1,106 | 742 | 744 | 0 | 1,210 | 812 | 2,766 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [1] | 2011 | 8 | 522 | 159 | 174 | 127 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wendover | 2011 | 6,215 | 4,774 | 0 | 1,655 | 2,101 | 2,348 | 0 | 814 | 1,033 | 4,195 |
| Wycombe | Bledlow and Bradenham | 2011 | 2,201 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,486 |
| Wycombe | Greater Hughenden | 2011 | 6,642 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,484 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,484 |
| Wycombe | Lacey Green, Speen and the Hampdens | 2011 | 2,102 | 897 | 0 | 304 | 0 | 1,060 | 0 | 359 | 0 | 1,419 |
| Wycombe | Stokenchurch and Radnage | 2011 | 4,224 | 2,149 | 0 | 619 | 0 | 2,214 | 0 | 638 | 0 | 2,852 |
| Total | 78,750 | 26,368 | 3,330 | 14,880 | 8,586 | 53,164 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Aylesbury 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 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 27,736 | 26,368 | 0 | 1,368 | Transfer in 27.5% (= 1368 / 4971) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 6,695 | 3,330 | 0 | 3,365 | Transfer in 67.7% (= 3365 / 4971) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 15,118 | 14,880 | 0 | 238 | Transfer in 4.8% (= 238 / 4971) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| OTH | 3,613 | 8,586 | 4,973 | 0 | Transfer away 57.9% (= 4973 / 8586) of ward's OTH votes |
| Total | 53,162 | 53,164 | 4,971 | 4,971 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Aylesbury, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Aylesbury | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Aylesbury Vale | Aston Clinton | 7,662 | Aylesbury | 3,426 | 412 | 892 | 442 | 5,172 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Aylesbury Central | 2,713 | Aylesbury | 613 | 554 | 586 | 79 | 1,832 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Bedgrove | 6,887 | Aylesbury | 2,135 | 584 | 1,696 | 235 | 4,650 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Coldharbour | 6,710 | Aylesbury | 1,709 | 276 | 2,248 | 297 | 4,530 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Elmhurst and Watermead | 6,450 | Aylesbury | 1,621 | 630 | 1,729 | 375 | 4,354 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Gatehouse | 4,175 | Aylesbury | 767 | 510 | 1,318 | 223 | 2,818 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Mandeville and Elm Farm | 6,318 | Aylesbury | 2,597 | 359 | 923 | 385 | 4,265 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Oakfield | 3,941 | Aylesbury | 847 | 744 | 825 | 245 | 2,661 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quarrendon [1] | 3,839 | Aylesbury | 705 | 777 | 740 | 369 | 2,591 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Southcourt | 4,567 | Aylesbury | 683 | 1,126 | 1,088 | 186 | 3,083 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Walton Court and Hawkslade | 4,096 | Aylesbury | 873 | 318 | 1,233 | 342 | 2,766 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [1] | 8 | Buckingham | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wendover | 6,215 | Aylesbury | 2,513 | 405 | 843 | 435 | 4,195 |
| Wycombe | Bledlow and Bradenham | 2,201 | Aylesbury | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,486 |
| Wycombe | Greater Hughenden | 6,642 | Chesham and Amersham | 4,484 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,484 |
| Wycombe | Lacey Green, Speen and the Hampdens | 2,102 | Aylesbury | 1,060 | 0 | 359 | 0 | 1,419 |
| Wycombe | Stokenchurch and Radnage | 4,224 | Wycombe | 2,214 | 0 | 638 | 0 | 2,852 |
| Total | 78,750 | 27,736 | 6,696 | 15,119 | 3,613 | 53,164 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Milton Keynes South. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Milton Keynes South | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Milton Keynes | Bletchley and Fenny Stratford | 2010 | 9,481 | 2,894 | 1,993 | 822 | 726 | 2,758 | 1,899 | 783 | 692 | 6,132 |
| Milton Keynes | Danesborough | 2011 | 3,567 | 1,377 | 246 | 102 | 96 | 1,745 | 312 | 129 | 122 | 2,308 |
| Milton Keynes | Denbigh | 2010 | 5,718 | 1,130 | 1,329 | 486 | 611 | 1,175 | 1,382 | 505 | 635 | 3,697 |
| Milton Keynes | Eaton Manor | 2010 | 5,618 | 752 | 1,493 | 351 | 434 | 902 | 1,790 | 421 | 520 | 3,633 |
| Milton Keynes | Emerson Valley | 2010 | 11,500 | 2,796 | 1,459 | 3,003 | 507 | 2,678 | 1,398 | 2,877 | 486 | 7,439 |
| Milton Keynes | Furzton | 2010 | 6,271 | 1,284 | 925 | 1,669 | 312 | 1,243 | 895 | 1,616 | 302 | 4,056 |
| Milton Keynes | Loughton Park | 2010 | 11,736 | 3,224 | 2,233 | 1,647 | 787 | 3,101 | 2,148 | 1,584 | 757 | 7,590 |
| Milton Keynes | Stony Stratford | 2010 | 8,937 | 4,764 | 3,073 | 2,334 | 1,882 | 2,285 | 1,474 | 1,119 | 903 | 5,781 |
| Milton Keynes | Walton Park | 2010 | 9,607 | 2,456 | 1,092 | 2,510 | 556 | 2,307 | 1,026 | 2,358 | 522 | 6,213 |
| Milton Keynes | Whaddon | 2010 | 6,263 | 0 | 1,587 | 822 | 1,595 | 0 | 1,606 | 832 | 1,614 | 4,052 |
| Milton Keynes | Woughton | 2011 | 6,854 | 414 | 1,437 | 147 | 219 | 828 | 2,873 | 294 | 438 | 4,433 |
| Total | 85,552 | 19,022 | 16,803 | 12,518 | 6,991 | 55,334 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Milton Keynes South 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 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 23,034 | 19,022 | 0 | 4,012 | Transfer in 79.6% (= 4012 / 5042) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 17,833 | 16,803 | 0 | 1,030 | Transfer in 20.4% (= 1030 / 5042) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 9,787 | 12,518 | 2,731 | 0 | Transfer away 21.8% (= 2731 / 12518) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 4,679 | 6,991 | 2,312 | 0 | Transfer away 33.1% (= 2312 / 6991) of ward's OTH votes |
| Total | 55,333 | 55,334 | 5,042 | 5,042 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Milton Keynes South, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Milton Keynes South | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Milton Keynes | Bletchley and Fenny Stratford | 9,481 | Milton Keynes South | 3,076 | 1,981 | 612 | 463 | 6,132 |
| Milton Keynes | Danesborough | 3,567 | Milton Keynes South | 1,799 | 326 | 101 | 82 | 2,308 |
| Milton Keynes | Denbigh | 5,718 | Milton Keynes South | 1,430 | 1,447 | 395 | 425 | 3,697 |
| Milton Keynes | Eaton Manor | 5,618 | Buckingham | 1,112 | 1,844 | 329 | 348 | 3,633 |
| Milton Keynes | Emerson Valley | 11,500 | Milton Keynes South | 3,305 | 1,559 | 2,249 | 325 | 7,439 |
| Milton Keynes | Furzton | 6,271 | Milton Keynes South | 1,603 | 987 | 1,263 | 202 | 4,056 |
| Milton Keynes | Loughton Park | 11,736 | Milton Keynes South | 3,575 | 2,270 | 1,238 | 507 | 7,590 |
| Milton Keynes | Stony Stratford | 8,937 | Milton Keynes South | 2,717 | 1,585 | 875 | 604 | 5,781 |
| Milton Keynes | Walton Park | 9,607 | Milton Keynes South | 2,854 | 1,166 | 1,844 | 349 | 6,213 |
| Milton Keynes | Whaddon | 6,263 | Buckingham | 569 | 1,752 | 650 | 1,080 | 4,052 |
| Milton Keynes | Woughton | 6,854 | Milton Keynes North | 994 | 2,916 | 230 | 293 | 4,433 |
| Total | 85,552 | 23,034 | 17,833 | 9,786 | 4,678 | 55,334 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Buckingham. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Buckingham | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Aylesbury Vale | Bierton | 2011 | 1,396 | 206 | 75 | 461 | 59 | 229 | 83 | 512 | 66 | 890 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Brill | 2011 | 2,084 | 693 | 230 | 173 | 70 | 789 | 262 | 197 | 80 | 1,328 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham North | 2011 | 4,978 | 1,643 | 1,108 | 0 | 647 | 1,534 | 1,035 | 0 | 604 | 3,173 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham South | 2011 | 4,144 | 1,653 | 1,289 | 0 | 193 | 1,393 | 1,086 | 0 | 163 | 2,642 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Cheddington | 2011 | 2,431 | 436 | 0 | 800 | 108 | 503 | 0 | 922 | 125 | 1,550 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Edlesborough | 2011 | 2,314 | 560 | 102 | 0 | 551 | 681 | 124 | 0 | 670 | 1,475 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Brickhill | 2011 | 2,496 | 856 | 0 | 196 | 142 | 1,140 | 0 | 261 | 189 | 1,590 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Horwood | 2011 | 2,440 | 818 | 162 | 146 | 133 | 1,010 | 200 | 180 | 164 | 1,554 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Grendon Underwood | 2011 | 2,065 | 575 | 0 | 155 | 314 | 725 | 0 | 195 | 396 | 1,316 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Haddenham | 2011 | 6,677 | 6,450 | 0 | 1,058 | 1,078 | 3,197 | 0 | 524 | 534 | 4,255 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Long Crendon | 2011 | 4,198 | 2,228 | 358 | 369 | 913 | 1,541 | 248 | 255 | 632 | 2,676 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Luffield Abbey | 2011 | 2,129 | 639 | 127 | 57 | 183 | 862 | 171 | 77 | 247 | 1,357 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Marsh Gibbon | 2011 | 2,563 | 817 | 0 | 349 | 160 | 1,006 | 0 | 430 | 197 | 1,633 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Newton Longville | 2011 | 2,002 | 785 | 0 | 130 | 123 | 965 | 0 | 160 | 151 | 1,276 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Pitstone | 2011 | 2,712 | 335 | 0 | 805 | 111 | 463 | 0 | 1,112 | 153 | 1,728 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quainton | 2011 | 2,017 | 637 | 0 | 187 | 397 | 671 | 0 | 197 | 418 | 1,286 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quarrendon [2] | 2011 | 3 | 490 | 376 | 621 | 761 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Steeple Claydon | 2011 | 2,263 | 533 | 148 | 119 | 154 | 806 | 224 | 180 | 233 | 1,443 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Stewkley | 2011 | 2,383 | 795 | 0 | 340 | 123 | 960 | 0 | 410 | 149 | 1,519 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Tingewick | 2011 | 2,601 | 885 | 269 | 0 | 121 | 1,151 | 350 | 0 | 157 | 1,658 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Waddesdon | 2011 | 1,956 | 274 | 86 | 413 | 328 | 310 | 97 | 468 | 371 | 1,246 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [2] | 2011 | 2,153 | 522 | 159 | 174 | 127 | 729 | 222 | 243 | 177 | 1,371 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wing | 2011 | 2,228 | 700 | 0 | 236 | 106 | 954 | 0 | 322 | 144 | 1,420 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wingrave | 2011 | 2,099 | 290 | 0 | 0 | 850 | 340 | 0 | 0 | 997 | 1,337 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Winslow | 2011 | 4,653 | 1,750 | 251 | 1,755 | 483 | 1,224 | 176 | 1,228 | 338 | 2,966 |
| Wycombe | Icknield | 2011 | 2,484 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,583 |
| Wycombe | The Risboroughs | 2011 | 6,368 | 3,754 | 375 | 0 | 4,457 | 1,775 | 177 | 0 | 2,107 | 4,059 |
| Total | 75,837 | 26,541 | 4,455 | 7,874 | 9,463 | 48,333 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Buckingham 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 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 22,860 | 26,541 | 3,681 | 0 | Transfer away 13.9% (= 3681 / 26541) of ward's CON votes |
| LAB | 0 | 4,455 | 4,455 | 0 | Transfer away 100.0% (= 4455 / 4455) of ward's LAB votes |
| LIB | 0 | 7,874 | 7,874 | 0 | Transfer away 100.0% (= 7874 / 7874) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 25,475 | 9,463 | 0 | 16,012 | Transfer in 100.0% (= 16012 / 16012) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| Total | 48,335 | 48,333 | 16,012 | 16,012 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Buckingham, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Buckingham | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Aylesbury Vale | Bierton | 1,396 | Buckingham | 197 | 0 | 0 | 693 | 890 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Brill | 2,084 | Buckingham | 680 | 0 | 0 | 648 | 1,328 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham North | 4,978 | Buckingham | 1,321 | 0 | 0 | 1,852 | 3,173 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham South | 4,144 | Buckingham | 1,200 | 0 | 0 | 1,442 | 2,642 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Cheddington | 2,431 | Buckingham | 433 | 0 | 0 | 1,117 | 1,550 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Edlesborough | 2,314 | Buckingham | 587 | 0 | 0 | 888 | 1,475 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Brickhill | 2,496 | Buckingham | 982 | 0 | 0 | 608 | 1,590 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Horwood | 2,440 | Buckingham | 870 | 0 | 0 | 684 | 1,554 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Grendon Underwood | 2,065 | Buckingham | 624 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 1,316 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Haddenham | 6,677 | Buckingham | 2,754 | 0 | 0 | 1,501 | 4,255 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Long Crendon | 4,198 | Buckingham | 1,327 | 0 | 0 | 1,349 | 2,676 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Luffield Abbey | 2,129 | Buckingham | 742 | 0 | 0 | 615 | 1,357 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Marsh Gibbon | 2,563 | Buckingham | 866 | 0 | 0 | 767 | 1,633 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Newton Longville | 2,002 | Buckingham | 831 | 0 | 0 | 445 | 1,276 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Pitstone | 2,712 | Buckingham | 399 | 0 | 0 | 1,329 | 1,728 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quainton | 2,017 | Buckingham | 578 | 0 | 0 | 708 | 1,286 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quarrendon [2] | 3 | Aylesbury | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Steeple Claydon | 2,263 | Buckingham | 694 | 0 | 0 | 749 | 1,443 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Stewkley | 2,383 | Buckingham | 827 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 1,519 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Tingewick | 2,601 | Buckingham | 991 | 0 | 0 | 667 | 1,658 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Waddesdon | 1,956 | Buckingham | 267 | 0 | 0 | 979 | 1,246 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [2] | 2,153 | Buckingham | 628 | 0 | 0 | 743 | 1,371 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wing | 2,228 | Buckingham | 822 | 0 | 0 | 598 | 1,420 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wingrave | 2,099 | Buckingham | 293 | 0 | 0 | 1,044 | 1,337 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Winslow | 4,653 | Buckingham | 1,054 | 0 | 0 | 1,912 | 2,966 |
| Wycombe | Icknield | 2,484 | Aylesbury | 1,363 | 0 | 0 | 220 | 1,583 |
| Wycombe | The Risboroughs | 6,368 | Aylesbury | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2,530 | 4,059 |
| Total | 75,837 | 22,859 | 0 | 0 | 25,474 | 48,333 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
| New seat: Buckingham | ||||||||
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | Old Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [1] | 8 | Aylesbury | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Milton Keynes | Eaton Manor | 5,618 | Milton Keynes South | 1,112 | 1,844 | 329 | 348 | 3,633 |
| Milton Keynes | Whaddon | 6,263 | Milton Keynes South | 569 | 1,752 | 650 | 1,080 | 4,052 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Bierton | 1,396 | Buckingham | 197 | 0 | 0 | 693 | 890 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Brill | 2,084 | Buckingham | 680 | 0 | 0 | 648 | 1,328 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham North | 4,978 | Buckingham | 1,321 | 0 | 0 | 1,852 | 3,173 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Buckingham South | 4,144 | Buckingham | 1,200 | 0 | 0 | 1,442 | 2,642 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Cheddington | 2,431 | Buckingham | 433 | 0 | 0 | 1,117 | 1,550 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Edlesborough | 2,314 | Buckingham | 587 | 0 | 0 | 888 | 1,475 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Brickhill | 2,496 | Buckingham | 982 | 0 | 0 | 608 | 1,590 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Great Horwood | 2,440 | Buckingham | 870 | 0 | 0 | 684 | 1,554 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Grendon Underwood | 2,065 | Buckingham | 624 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 1,316 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Haddenham | 6,677 | Buckingham | 2,754 | 0 | 0 | 1,501 | 4,255 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Long Crendon | 4,198 | Buckingham | 1,327 | 0 | 0 | 1,349 | 2,676 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Luffield Abbey | 2,129 | Buckingham | 742 | 0 | 0 | 615 | 1,357 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Marsh Gibbon | 2,563 | Buckingham | 866 | 0 | 0 | 767 | 1,633 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Newton Longville | 2,002 | Buckingham | 831 | 0 | 0 | 445 | 1,276 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Pitstone | 2,712 | Buckingham | 399 | 0 | 0 | 1,329 | 1,728 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Quainton | 2,017 | Buckingham | 578 | 0 | 0 | 708 | 1,286 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Steeple Claydon | 2,263 | Buckingham | 694 | 0 | 0 | 749 | 1,443 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Stewkley | 2,383 | Buckingham | 827 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 1,519 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Tingewick | 2,601 | Buckingham | 991 | 0 | 0 | 667 | 1,658 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Waddesdon | 1,956 | Buckingham | 267 | 0 | 0 | 979 | 1,246 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Weedon [2] | 2,153 | Buckingham | 628 | 0 | 0 | 743 | 1,371 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wing | 2,228 | Buckingham | 822 | 0 | 0 | 598 | 1,420 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Wingrave | 2,099 | Buckingham | 293 | 0 | 0 | 1,044 | 1,337 |
| Aylesbury Vale | Winslow | 4,653 | Buckingham | 1,054 | 0 | 0 | 1,912 | 2,966 |
| Total | 78,871 | 21,651 | 3,597 | 980 | 24,150 | 50,378 | ||
And these are the implied results for 2010 for the new seat of Buckingham.