The ideal precedent is along the lines of Waverley Borough Council election, 2015. Note not individual sub-headings for all the many variable and highly artificial wards of the United Kingdom, not a link in the ward-by-ward results to each party, who are instead colour-coded as to the winner and as to the summary at the top. Including please % of the vote share for each party. As some other (mainly non-metropolitan district) election articles have gone so far as to colour code ridiculously every party box but not give an ounce of credit for a breakthrough in terms of % of the vote.

I am sure those of other countries who run their country with less focus on such minutiae as WP:OVERLINKing every result would not wish to see what wikipedia is not violated, that is linking to every party name in each instance as though it were in need or explanation (they don't do that with long lists of comparable French or American elections where minor parties are at best linked to in the summary box at the top) nor should we in a system where winner takes all but the others by combined will have a good chance of success. Equally independents stand out more under this reduced bytes system so everyone's a winner! I do hope you agree, we can dwell too much on writing war and peace otherwise in what is actually a very mundane set of results.- Adam37 Talk 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)