Chatham House report is interesting but draws the wrong conclusions (due to Ali Ansari's bias) because it does not take in to account the 4 years of Ahmadinejads presidency on voters in rural areas. Yes in 2005 his strength was the urban areas whilst rural people voted reformist, but during his presidency he had spent the oil money in rural areas and is the first presidency to visit them so he has picked up the rural vote, adding that to the urban vote he had in 2005 resulting in his landslide victory. Remember there are no parties in Iran so no party loyalty among voters - its all down to the candidate. Anecdotal example mention in Guardian article of one ardent Mousavi supporter who one minute was distributing green threads and painting green graffiti, etc. then saw the deabte Ahmadinejad vs Muousavi where Ahmadinejad attacked Rafsanjani as corrupt, he switched side and became an ahmadinejad supporter!

More votes cast then voters in a city isn't strange in Iran and certainly not an indication of vote rigging. In Iran a person isn't restricted to casting his vote in his own neighbourhood or town so people traveling in to the city for work or friday prayers will naturally vote in the city rather than in their village hence upsetting the city figures. Its because the turnout was so high at 85% that this looks strange with their added count pushing the vote to over 100%.