Ground machine

Where the structure is real, and where it is names on paper

Wards
8,813
8,809 declared
Votes at risk
6.5m
2023 basis

Two coverage figures, and only one of them is true

49.1%
By ward count

The figure a structure report quotes. Counts every ward the same, from Jaba to Kano Municipal.

67.6%
By vote weight

The same structure, divided through by the votes each ward actually carried in 2023. This is the number that predicts an outcome.

The gap between them is -18.6 points. A campaign told it is 49% covered will resource as though it is; it is functionally 68% covered against the electorate. Every ward-count coverage report in Nigerian party organising has this bug, and it always errs in the same direction — flattering, never alarming.

Ward status

8,813 wards
49%
23%
17%
10%
Filled4,324
Contested2,050
Exposed1,520
Vacant919
Wards filled
4,324
Exposed
1,520
Vacant
919
Polling units behind them
176,846
INEC roll

Coverage by zone

Share of wards filled
North West53% · 28% of vote
North Central55% · 19% of vote
South West61% · 18% of vote
North East50% · 14% of vote
South South45% · 12% of vote
South East24% · 9% of vote

Where the ward count flatters you most

Ward coverage minus vote-weighted coverage
Ogun
65% by ward · 78% by weight
-12.8pt
Borno
63% by ward · 77% by weight
-14.0pt
Benue
63% by ward · 77% by weight
-14.4pt
Zamfara
63% by ward · 77% by weight
-14.7pt
Kebbi
62% by ward · 77% by weight
-15.1pt
Niger
62% by ward · 78% by weight
-15.4pt
Yobe
63% by ward · 78% by weight
-15.4pt
Jigawa
62% by ward · 78% by weight
-15.7pt

These are the states where a structure report would most mislead the campaign that commissioned it. The mechanism is always the same: coverage concentrated in the small wards and thin in the heavy ones, which a headcount cannot see.

Votes at risk by state

Sitting under exposed or vacant structure
Kano
7.1% of the national vote
531k
Kaduna
5.7% of the national vote
411k
Plateau
4.5% of the national vote
336k
Anambra
2.6% of the national vote
334k
Delta
2.6% of the national vote
310k
Imo
1.9% of the national vote
267k
Adamawa
3.0% of the national vote
243k
Bauchi
3.6% of the national vote
242k
Enugu
1.9% of the national vote
233k
FCT
1.9% of the national vote
230k

The chase list. Ranked by 2023 votes sitting behind broken structure, not by the number of wards involved.

How this is derived

Stated, not hidden
The geography is real
8,813 wards in their actual states and LGAs, reconciled against INEC’s declared 8,809. The 2023 vote each state cast is INEC’s declaration.
The coverage status is simulated
Deterministic from seed ng-2027-demo. In deployment this is a read of the party’s own structure returns — a different data source, not a different model.
Ward vote weight is apportioned
Each ward is credited an equal share of its state’s 2023 result. Approximate by construction — INEC does not publish ward-level presidential results — and it is the single largest modelling assumption on this page. Ward-level returns from the parallel count would replace it.
No individual is named
A ward carries a count of filled roles, never a roster of people. Eight thousand wards times four roles is thirty-five thousand names a demo has no business inventing, and personal data this platform has no lawful basis to hold.