2023 presidentialIReV polling-unit results

Half of Tinubu’s votes came from 14% of polling units. Half of Kwankwaso’s came from 1.5%.

This briefing sorts every polling unit in the 2023 presidential IReV record by the votes it gave each candidate, then walks down from the fullest units until half of that candidate’s national total is in. The share of Nigeria’s polling units needed for that half is the concentration figure. Tinubu and Atiku were spread. Obi was tighter. Kwankwaso was piled.

14%
of polling units
held half of Tinubu’s votes
12.5%
of polling units
held half of Atiku’s votes
8%
of polling units
held half of Obi’s votes
1.5%
of polling units
held half of Kwankwaso’s votes

National totals

How many units it took to reach half of each pile

If votes were spread evenly, half of the units would produce half of the votes. Nobody was close to that. Percentages use all 176,409 polling units in the file, including units with no published four-party tally.

Candidate Four-party votes Units for 50% Share of all units Share of reported units
Bola Tinubu (APC)7.82m25,06814.2%17.2%
Atiku Abubakar (PDP)5.89m22,09412.5%15.2%
Peter Obi (LP)5.52m14,4778.2%9.9%
Rabiu Kwankwaso (NNPP)1.53m2,6371.5%1.8%

Reported units are the 145,701 polling units with a published four-party tally. Ranking does not change if those are used as the denominator instead. Tinubu needed almost ten times as many units as Kwankwaso to reach the same half.

Tinubu’s half came from 25,068 units. Kwankwaso’s half came from 2,637. Obi needed fewer units than either major-party candidate because his strongest boxes were fatter: the last unit into his 50% set still had 113 LP votes, against 96 APC and 85 PDP.

Down the list

How far you have to walk to collect 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90%

Each column is the share of all 176,409 polling units, after sorting that candidate’s units from most votes to fewest.

Candidate 10% of votes 25% 50% 75% 90%
Tinubu0.9%4.7%14.2%28.9%43.5%
Atiku1.4%4.6%12.5%25.4%39.8%
Obi0.7%2.7%8.2%17.5%28.2%
Kwankwaso0.06%0.2%1.5%4.1%9.1%

The strongest 1% of polling units held 11% of Tinubu’s votes, 8% of Atiku’s, 13% of Obi’s and 42% of Kwankwaso’s. Kwankwaso is recorded as zero in 65% of all units and in 57% of units that published a four-party tally.

Where the half sat

Tinubu needed 11 states for half his votes. Kwankwaso needed two.

This table uses whole-state totals, largest first, until half of that candidate’s national four-party vote is in. It is a different cut from the polling-unit sort above.

Candidate States for 50% LGAs for 50% Largest states in that half
Tinubu11 of 37188 of 774Lagos, Katsina, Kano, Oyo, Niger
Atiku9 of 37164 of 774Kaduna, Katsina, Bauchi, Adamawa, Osun
Obi8 of 3774 of 774Lagos, Plateau, Anambra, Enugu, Edo
Kwankwaso2 of 3736 of 774Kano (48%), then Abia in this corpus (7%)

Lagos is Tinubu’s largest state, but his fullest individual boxes sit more often in Jigawa, Katsina and Ondo. Obi’s half is an urban-centre stack: 32 of his 50 national points come from city-centre units in the 50% polling-unit set. Atiku’s half leans village. Tinubu’s is close to even across city centre, town and village.

Kwankwaso’s second state in this transcribed polling-unit file is Abia, at 7% of his national total, ahead of Kaduna and Jigawa. That is large enough to move his concentration numbers. It is a data-quality check, not a political finding, and it is not an INEC state declaration.

Method

How concentration is measured

The test is added on top of the 2023 presidential IReV polling-unit file. Vote totals on those units are not changed.

01

Start from the published unit

The dataset has one row for each of 176,409 polling units, with votes for APC, LP, PDP and NNPP.

02

Take that candidate’s votes on every unit

Units with no published four-party tally, 30,708 of them, enter as zero. They never join a 50% set. They only enlarge the denominator.

03

Sort from most votes to fewest

A unit with 400 votes outranks a unit with 90, even if the 90 is 90% of a tiny box. This measures where the national pile was stacked, not where the candidate dominated locally.

04

Walk down the list until half is in

Cumulate until the running total first exceeds 50% of that candidate’s corpus total. Report the unit count as a share of all 176,409 units.

05

Repeat at other cuts

The same sort gives the 10%, 25%, 75% and 90% marks, the state and LGA counts, and the city / town / village mix of the 50% polling-unit set.

06

Keep the corpus totals as they stand

Four-party votes in this file are APC 7.82m, LP 5.52m, PDP 5.89m and NNPP 1.53m. Unpublished or untranscribed units are out of the numerator. These are not INEC’s declared national figures.

Votes

What is counted

Each candidate is scored on their own vote vector. The 50% line is half of that candidate’s four-party total in this file, not half of all votes cast.

Limits

What this is not

A concentrated vote is a geographic pattern in the published file. It is not, by itself, proof of a weak campaign or of malpractice. Only INEC declares official results.

How Mundx reads IReV result forms is documented on Method. Companion briefings: city, town and village votes, schools, halls and gates, one-party polling units, and 2023 governorship versus presidential votes. Only INEC declares official results.

Open the 2023 map

The same polling-unit file drives the public presidential map. Each unit still links back to its published source record.

IReV polling-unit results · Only INEC declares