{ "archivePublicationDate": "2026-10-25", "provenance": "Figures and methodology provided by Northbound Insights on 25 October 2026. No respondent-level records were supplied. The latest Toronto and Oakville versions supersede the earlier submissions.", "studies": [ { "slug": "mississauga-final-tracker-2026", "region": "Mississauga", "release": "2026-10-24", "start": "2026-10-21", "end": "2026-10-23", "voteDate": "2026-10-26", "n": 850, "undecided": 12, "reportedPrecision": "±3.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "Mississauga: Crombie 33%, Tedjo 31%, Parrish 27%.", "deck": "Tedjo gains 12 points across three supplied campaign waves, narrowing Crombie’s advantage to two points in the final pre-election tracker.", "finding": "2 pp", "findingLabel": "Crombie–Tedjo gap among decided and leaning voters", "summary": "The sharpest change is the narrowing contest for first place. Parrish remains within six points of Crombie, while 12% of all respondents remain undecided.", "candidates": [ "Bonnie Crombie", "Alvin Tedjo", "Carolyn Parrish", "Dipika Damerla", "Other candidates" ], "values": [ 33, 31, 27, 6, 3 ], "waves": [ { "label": "15 Sept 2026", "release": "2026-09-15", "values": [ 36, 19, 32, 10, 3 ], "undecided": 21 }, { "label": "8 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-08", "values": [ 34, 25, 29, 9, 3 ] }, { "label": "24 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-24", "start": "2026-10-21", "end": "2026-10-23", "n": 850, "values": [ 33, 31, 27, 6, 3 ], "undecided": 12 } ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "Advance voters and intended election-day voters", "base": "Decided and leaning within each voting-stage group; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Bonnie Crombie", "Alvin Tedjo", "Carolyn Parrish" ], "rows": [ [ "Already voted", 36, 30, 29 ], [ "Intend to vote on election day", 31, 33, null ] ], "note": "Parrish’s election-day figure and other candidates are not supplied here. Missing values are not inferred. Reported voting intention is not a validated turnout forecast." } ], "measures": [ { "title": "Bonnie Crombie: name recognition", "value": 96, "base": "Reported recognition measure; exact question and response base not supplied" }, { "title": "Bonnie Crombie: unfavourable", "value": 41, "base": "Reported favourability measure; exact question and response base not supplied" }, { "title": "Alvin Tedjo: net favourability", "value": 24, "unit": "pp", "base": "Reported favourable minus unfavourable balance; component shares not supplied" }, { "title": "Alvin Tedjo: late-deciding voters", "value": 44, "base": "Share among respondents deciding in the final week; subgroup n not supplied" } ], "sections": [ [ "The lead narrows from 17 points to two", "The supplied September 15 wave placed Crombie at 36% and Tedjo at 19%. By the final wave those shares were 33% and 31%. The gap narrows by 15 percentage points, combining a three-point decline for Crombie with a 12-point increase for Tedjo. Parrish moves from 32% to 27%, while Damerla moves from 10% to 6%." ], [ "Undecided respondents remain part of the story", "The undecided share falls from 21% in the September baseline to 12% in the final wave. Candidate percentages use the decided-and-leaning base, while the undecided figure uses all respondents. The shrinking undecided share therefore cannot be assigned directly to any one candidate." ], [ "Voting stage changes the ordering", "Among respondents reporting that they have already voted, Crombie leads Tedjo 36% to 30%, with Parrish at 29%. Among those intending to vote on election day, the supplied estimates put Tedjo at 33% and Crombie at 31%. These groups differ; the survey does not establish how many people from each group will contribute to the final electorate." ], [ "Recognition and favourability answer different questions", "Crombie’s reported 96% recognition and 41% unfavourable rating describe different attributes. Tedjo’s reported +24-point favourability balance and 44% share of late deciders add context, but neither is a vote ceiling or a probability of winning. Exact question wording and subgroup counts have not been supplied with these figures." ], [ "What the wave comparison can show", "The toplines document changes in reported support. They do not demonstrate that particular Damerla supporters switched to Tedjo, or isolate the effect of a tax or transit proposal. Respondent-level reinterview records and an appropriate analysis would be needed for those stronger claims." ] ], "mode": "60% IVR telephone interviews via landline and cellphone; 40% SMS-to-web.", "recruitment": "Described in the supplied release as a hybrid stratified random sample. Frame construction, SMS selection probabilities, overlap handling and screening details were not supplied.", "weights": "Age, gender, housing tenure and municipal ward, using Statistics Canada census parameters. Census vintage and numerical targets were not supplied.", "precision": "The supplied release reports ±3.4 pp, 19 times out of 20. A design-valid margin for the combined, weighted estimate cannot be confirmed from the summary alone. It is not applied to candidate gaps or subgroup results.", "official": "https://www.mississauga.ca/council/elections/" }, { "slug": "milton-final-poll-2026", "region": "Milton", "release": "2026-10-23", "start": "2026-10-19", "end": "2026-10-22", "voteDate": "2026-10-26", "n": 600, "undecided": 14, "reportedPrecision": "±4.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "Milton: Krantz 33%, Akbar 27%, Minakakis 18%.", "deck": "The final pre-election figures put the incumbent six points ahead of Akbar, with distinct patterns by length of residency and a divided challenger field.", "finding": "6 pp", "findingLabel": "Krantz–Akbar gap among decided and leaning voters", "summary": "Krantz has the largest single share. Akbar is second, while the other named challengers together account for a further 37% of decided and leaning support.", "candidates": [ "Gordon Krantz", "Nadeem Akbar", "George Minakakis", "Zainab Azim", "Sameera Ali", "Other candidates" ], "values": [ 33, 27, 18, 10, 9, 3 ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "A different ordering by length of residency", "base": "Decided and leaning within each residency group; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Gordon Krantz", "Nadeem Akbar" ], "rows": [ [ "Lived in Milton less than 10 years", 22, 35 ], [ "Lived in Milton more than 15 years", 51, 16 ] ], "note": "Selected candidates and residency groups only. The 10–15-year group was not supplied. These are separate groups, not a time-series comparison." } ], "measures": [ { "title": "Time for a new direction at Town Hall", "value": 62, "base": "All respondents; exact question and answer options not supplied" }, { "title": "Zainab Azim among voters under 35", "value": 24, "base": "Reported support within the under-35 subgroup; subgroup n not supplied" } ], "sections": [ [ "A plurality leader in a crowded contest", "Krantz’s 33% is six points above Akbar’s 27%, with Minakakis at 18%, Azim at 10% and Ali at 9%. The five named candidates account for 97% of decided and leaning support, with 3% assigned to the other candidates. No candidate reaches a majority in this snapshot." ], [ "Residency reveals a contrast within the town", "The supplied subgroup estimates put Akbar ahead of Krantz 35% to 22% among people who have lived in Milton for less than ten years. Among residents of more than 15 years, Krantz leads 51% to 16%. These estimates describe an association with residency; they do not establish that length of residency causes a ballot choice." ], [ "A desire for change is a separate measure", "The reported 62% saying it is time for a new direction comes from an attitudinal question, rather than the decided-and-leaning ballot. Support for the four named challengers is spread across distinct candidates. Their percentages cannot be treated as transferable votes for a single alternative." ], [ "Younger voters add another dimension", "Azim’s reported 24% among voters under 35 is higher than her 10% overall estimate. That difference gives context to the aggregate result, but the subgroup’s interview count and effective sample size were not supplied. Its precision cannot be assessed using the total sample of 600." ], [ "The undecided group keeps the snapshot open", "Fourteen percent of all respondents remain undecided. The report contains voting intention, rather than a turnout-calibrated forecast. It does not establish which undecided residents will vote, how they will divide or whether the point-estimate gaps are statistically distinguishable." ] ], "mode": "Live-operator telephone interviews via landline and mobile, plus targeted online panels. The mode split was not supplied.", "recruitment": "Eligible Milton voters; quotas across all four municipal wards, age brackets and length of residency. Online-panel recruitment and telephone selection probabilities were not supplied.", "weights": "Post-stratification across ward, age and length of residency. Numerical targets, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.", "precision": "The supplied release reports ±4.0 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional sampling margin is not assigned here to the mixed telephone and targeted-panel result without a documented probability design for all components.", "official": "https://www.milton.ca/your-government/elections/2026-municipal-election/2026-certified-candidates/" }, { "slug": "toronto-final-poll-2026", "region": "Toronto", "release": "2026-10-24", "start": "2026-10-21", "end": "2026-10-23", "voteDate": "2026-10-26", "n": 1200, "undecided": 6, "reportedPrecision": "±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "Toronto: Chow 51%, Bradford 46%.", "deck": "Bradford gains seven points across three supplied campaign waves. Chow retains a five-point advantage in a contest with sharply different regional and age-group estimates.", "finding": "5 pp", "findingLabel": "Chow–Bradford gap among decided and leaning voters", "summary": "The contest has tightened as Bradford’s share rises and support for other candidates falls. The final survey still places Chow ahead; it does not establish a certain outcome.", "candidates": [ "Olivia Chow", "Brad Bradford", "Other candidates" ], "values": [ 51, 46, 3 ], "waves": [ { "label": "22 Sept 2026", "release": "2026-09-22", "values": [ 53, 39, 8 ], "undecided": 18 }, { "label": "12 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-12", "values": [ 51, 44, 5 ] }, { "label": "24 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-24", "start": "2026-10-21", "end": "2026-10-23", "n": 1200, "values": [ 51, 46, 3 ], "undecided": 6 } ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "The regional picture", "base": "Decided and leaning within each survey region; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Olivia Chow", "Brad Bradford" ], "rows": [ [ "Old Toronto / East York", 56, 41 ], [ "North York", 45, 52 ], [ "Etobicoke / York", 46, 51 ], [ "Scarborough", 54, 43 ] ], "note": "Other candidates account for 3% in each supplied region. These are survey regions, not ward-level estimates or riding projections." }, { "title": "The age-group picture", "base": "Decided and leaning within each age group; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Olivia Chow", "Brad Bradford" ], "rows": [ [ "18–34", 61, 36 ], [ "35–54", 45, 52 ], [ "55+", 49, 48 ] ], "note": "Point estimates only. A one-point gap among voters aged 55+ is not presented as a formal statistical tie. The full-sample size does not describe these subgroup bases." } ], "sections": [ [ "A narrowing lead, rather than a reversal", "Chow’s supplied share moves from 53% on September 22 to 51% in both October waves. Bradford rises from 39% to 44% and then 46%, while other candidates fall from 8% to 3%. The Chow–Bradford gap narrows from 14 to five percentage points across the three observations." ], [ "The suburbs do not form a single bloc", "Bradford leads in the supplied North York and Etobicoke / York estimates, while Chow leads in Old Toronto / East York and Scarborough. Scarborough’s 54–43 ordering differs from the other suburban regions. The chart preserves those differences without turning them into a neighbourhood-level forecast." ], [ "Age patterns cut across the city-wide result", "The supplied 18–34 estimate favours Chow 61% to 36%, while the 35–54 estimate favours Bradford 52% to 45%. Among respondents aged 55 and older, the estimates are 49% and 48%. Subgroup counts, weighting effects and turnout rates are needed before making stronger claims about which group will decide the result." ], [ "What falling undecided and other shares do not establish", "The undecided share among all respondents falls from 18% to 6%, while other-candidate support falls on the decided-and-leaning ballot. Those changes are consistent with a more concentrated contest. They do not identify individual voter transfers, prove that a particular withdrawal caused the change or isolate the effect of a campaign platform." ], [ "Voting intention is not a turnout model", "The supplied material does not include a turnout-model specification, calibration data, coefficients or validation. This page therefore reports the survey and its observed group differences, rather than a win probability or a claim about how remaining undecided voters must divide." ] ], "mode": "55% live-agent telephone interviews via mobile and landline; 45% verified online voter panels.", "recruitment": "Described as a hybrid RDD telephone and online-panel sample, stratified across four community council districts. Verification does not itself establish probability recruitment; panel inclusion probabilities were not supplied.", "weights": "Age, gender, education and housing tenure using Statistics Canada census parameters. Numerical targets, census vintage and design effects were not supplied.", "precision": "The supplied release reports ±2.8 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to the combined telephone and panel result without documentation of probability recruitment and the combined estimator.", "official": "https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/elections/candidate-list/" }, { "slug": "oakville-final-poll-2026", "region": "Oakville", "release": "2026-10-24", "start": "2026-10-20", "end": "2026-10-23", "voteDate": "2026-10-26", "n": 650, "undecided": 11, "reportedPrecision": "±3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "Oakville: Burton 31%, Hanna 27%, O’Meara 22%.", "deck": "Five candidates divide the decided-and-leaning ballot. The supplied ward-group estimates show a different ordering in northern Oakville as development and traffic dominate the report’s issue findings.", "finding": "4 pp", "findingLabel": "Burton–Hanna gap among decided and leaning voters", "summary": "Burton has the largest single share, but the four challengers collectively hold 69% of decided and leaning support. That arithmetic does not establish a unified or transferable change vote.", "candidates": [ "Rob Burton", "Julia Hanna", "Sean O’Meara", "Jeff Knoll", "Arvind Choudhary" ], "values": [ 31, 27, 22, 12, 8 ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "The ballot across three ward groups", "base": "Decided and leaning within each ward group; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Rob Burton", "Julia Hanna", "Sean O’Meara", "Jeff Knoll", "Arvind Choudhary" ], "rows": [ [ "Wards 1–3", 38, 29, 23, 6, 4 ], [ "Wards 4–5", 30, 27, 21, 16, 6 ], [ "Wards 6–7", 24, 26, 22, 14, 14 ] ], "note": "Groups follow the supplied table. They are labelled by ward rather than treated as exact QEW or Dundas geographic boundaries. Smaller subgroup bases have greater uncertainty." } ], "measures": [ { "title": "Want a shift in development and traffic management", "value": 69, "base": "Reported attitudinal measure; exact wording and answer options not supplied" }, { "title": "Midtown TOC / intensification as primary voting issue", "value": 36, "base": "Reported primary-issue measure; exact question and other response categories not supplied" } ], "sections": [ [ "The town-wide result leaves several contenders in view", "Burton leads Hanna by four points in the supplied topline, with O’Meara a further five points behind Hanna. Knoll and Choudhary account for another 20% between them. A five-way distribution of support is different from the almost two-candidate contest at the top of the 2022 result." ], [ "The ward groups tell different stories", "In Wards 1–3, Burton’s reported 38% is nine points above Hanna’s 29%. In Wards 6–7, Hanna is at 26%, Burton at 24% and O’Meara at 22%; Knoll and Choudhary each have 14%. The four challengers sum to 76% in that northern ward group, but this does not measure how voters would behave on a different ballot." ], [ "Two 69% figures answer different questions", "The four challengers’ town-wide shares add to 69% among decided and leaning respondents. Separately, the supplied attitudinal result says 69% want a shift in development and traffic management. The matching numbers do not mean the same people supplied both answers, and one should not be substituted for the other." ], [ "Midtown is prominent without explaining every vote", "The report’s 36% Midtown TOC and intensification figure indicates an important issue within the supplied question. It does not establish that a specific candidate gained support because of that issue. No earlier Oakville wave, respondent transition table or causal analysis was supplied to substantiate the claimed four-point late gain for O’Meara." ], [ "The 2022 result provides context, not a poll benchmark", "Official 2022 results gave Burton 49.24% and Hanna 47.06%, a difference of 2.18 percentage points. Those were counted election votes on a different ballot. They are kept separate from the 2026 survey, its decided-and-leaning base and its 11% undecided share among all respondents." ] ], "mode": "IVR telephone interviews and targeted SMS-to-web panels. The mode split was not supplied.", "recruitment": "Described in the supplied release as a random sample of eligible Oakville voters, stratified across seven wards. SMS-panel recruitment, frame selection and overlap treatment were not supplied.", "weights": "Age, gender and homeownership status. Numerical targets, census vintage, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.", "precision": "The supplied release reports ±3.8 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to a combined IVR and targeted-panel result without a documented probability design for all components.", "official": "https://www.oakville.ca/town-hall/elections/candidates/certified-candidates/", "context": [ { "label": "Town of Oakville: official 2022 election results", "url": "https://www.oakville.ca/town-hall/elections/past-elections/2022-municipal-election/2022-municipal-election-results-summary-with-percentages/" } ] }, { "slug": "british-columbia-final-poll-2026", "kind": "Provincial", "region": "British Columbia", "electionLabel": "2026 B.C. provincial election", "release": "2026-10-23", "start": "2026-10-20", "end": "2026-10-22", "voteDate": "2026-10-24", "n": 1400, "undecided": 7, "reportedPrecision": "±2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "B.C.: Conservatives 48%, NDP 38%, Greens 11%.", "deck": "Three supplied campaign waves show a nine-point Conservative gain and a reversal in the province-wide ordering. Regional estimates show a more varied picture.", "finding": "10 pp", "findingLabel": "Conservative–NDP gap among decided and leaning voters", "summary": "The Conservative estimate rises from 39% to 48% across the three waves, while the NDP moves from 43% to 38%. A provincial vote-share estimate and a seat model are distinct products.", "candidates": [ "BC Conservatives", "BC NDP", "BC Greens", "CentreBC / OneBC / other" ], "values": [ 48, 38, 11, 3 ], "waves": [ { "label": "25 Sept 2026", "release": "2026-09-25", "values": [ 39, 43, 10, 8 ] }, { "label": "11 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-11", "values": [ 44, 40, 11, 5 ] }, { "label": "23 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-23", "start": "2026-10-20", "end": "2026-10-22", "n": 1400, "values": [ 48, 38, 11, 3 ], "undecided": 7 } ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "The regional ballot", "base": "Decided and leaning within each supplied region; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "BC Conservatives", "BC NDP", "BC Greens", "CentreBC / OneBC / other" ], "rows": [ [ "Metro Vancouver", 43, 44, 9, 4 ], [ "Fraser Valley / Surrey", 55, 35, 6, 4 ], [ "Vancouver Island", 35, 40, 23, 2 ], [ "Interior & North", 61, 29, 8, 2 ] ], "note": "These are the source’s regional labels. Exact boundaries and weights were not supplied; Surrey must not be counted twice when interpreting a Metro Vancouver grouping." } ], "measures": [ { "title": "Early election call described as unnecessary and partisan", "value": 54, "base": "Reported attitude measure; exact wording, alternatives and question base not supplied" }, { "title": "Conservative issue-trust advantage", "value": 19, "unit": "pp", "base": "Reported trust balance; exact issue question, comparison and component shares not supplied" } ], "seatModel": { "total": 93, "majority": 47, "rows": [ [ "BC Conservatives", 62, 66 ], [ "BC NDP", 25, 29 ], [ "BC Greens", 2, 3 ], [ "Other", 0, 0 ] ], "note": "Seat ranges are supplied model outputs. No riding model, assumptions, joint simulations or validation were provided. Ranges are not confidence intervals and their endpoints cannot be added as a single seat allocation." }, "sections": [ [ "The change is in both the lead and its direction", "The September 25 wave put the Conservatives four points behind the NDP. The October 11 wave placed them four points ahead, and the final wave ten points ahead. The Conservative estimate increases by nine points, the NDP falls by five, and the grouped smaller-party share falls from 8% to 3%. These are aggregate changes, rather than documented individual voter transfers." ], [ "A provincial lead coexists with different local orderings", "The final regional figures put the NDP one point above the Conservatives in Metro Vancouver and five points above them on Vancouver Island. The Conservative advantages are wider in the Fraser Valley / Surrey and Interior & North categories. The provincial topline therefore does not describe every region in the same way." ], [ "The Green estimate is concentrated in the regional table", "The Greens’ 23% on Vancouver Island is more than twice their 11% province-wide estimate. That is a notable pattern within the supplied figures, but its precision depends on the Island subgroup count and weighting. It does not establish that an individual Green candidate was ahead in a particular riding." ], [ "Smaller-party decline does not identify the destination of every vote", "The grouped CentreBC / OneBC / other category loses five points across the displayed waves. The comparison does not prove that all of those respondents moved to the Conservatives, nor isolate the effect of the election call, a party leadership change or a municipal result." ], [ "Keep the supplied seat output inspectable", "The supplied Conservative range of 62–66 is above the 47-seat majority threshold in a 93-seat chamber. That describes the submitted model output, not an independently replicated forecast. The information needed to audit the riding allocation and its uncertainty was not supplied." ] ], "mode": "50% live-operator telephone interviews via landline and mobile; 50% proprietary online panel.", "recruitment": "Stratified hybrid sample of eligible B.C. voters across four regional zones. Telephone-frame selection, panel recruitment probabilities and overlap treatment were not supplied.", "weights": "Age, gender, education and recalled 2024 provincial vote. Numerical targets, regional boundaries, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.", "precision": "The release reports ±2.6 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to the combined telephone and proprietary-panel result without a documented probability design and combined estimator.", "official": "https://elections.bc.ca/2026-provincial-election/who-can-vote/" }, { "slug": "alberta-referendum-final-poll-2026", "kind": "Referendum", "region": "Alberta", "electionLabel": "2026 Alberta referendum · all ten questions", "release": "2026-10-18", "start": "2026-10-14", "end": "2026-10-17", "voteDate": "2026-10-19", "n": 1100, "undecided": null, "reportedPrecision": "±3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "ballotBase": "Decided respondents · question-specific unweighted bases not supplied", "ballotTitle": "Question 10: remain or begin the referendum process", "title": "Alberta: 75% remain, with a closer autonomy ballot.", "deck": "The supplied final survey puts remain at 75% on Question 10. The other nine questions range from a 62–38 yes advantage to a 49–51 split.", "finding": "75%", "findingLabel": "Remain in Canada among decided Question 10 respondents", "summary": "The large Question 10 gap is distinct from the much closer constitutional proposals. Each question has its own response base and should be read separately.", "candidates": [ "Remain a province of Canada", "Begin process for a future binding referendum" ], "values": [ 75, 25 ], "referendumQuestions": [ { "q": 1, "topic": "Greater provincial control over immigration", "yes": 54, "no": 46, "regions": [ 52, 44, 66 ] }, { "q": 2, "topic": "Eligibility for provincially funded services", "yes": 52, "no": 48, "regions": [ 50, 42, 64 ] }, { "q": 3, "topic": "Twelve-month residency requirement for temporary residents", "yes": 55, "no": 45, "regions": [ 53, 45, 67 ] }, { "q": 4, "topic": "Health and education fees for temporary residents", "yes": 55, "no": 45, "regions": [ 53, 44, 68 ] }, { "q": 5, "topic": "Proof of citizenship for provincial voting", "yes": 62, "no": 38, "regions": [ 60, 51, 75 ] }, { "q": 6, "topic": "Provincial selection of King’s Bench and Appeal justices", "yes": 50, "no": 50, "regions": [ 47, 39, 62 ] }, { "q": 7, "topic": "Abolition of the federal Senate", "yes": 53, "no": 47, "regions": [ 51, 45, 63 ] }, { "q": 8, "topic": "Federal program opt-outs with funding retained", "yes": 49, "no": 51, "regions": [ 46, 38, 61 ] }, { "q": 9, "topic": "Priority for provincial laws in specified conflicts", "yes": 51, "no": 49, "regions": [ 48, 40, 63 ] }, { "q": 10, "topic": "Remain in Canada / begin a future referendum process", "yes": 75, "no": 25, "regions": [ 82, 85, 61 ] } ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "Question 10 across the supplied regions", "base": "Decided Question 10 respondents within each region; subgroup counts not supplied", "series": [ "Calgary", "Edmonton", "Rural Alberta" ], "rows": [ [ "Remain in Canada", 82, 85, 61 ] ], "note": "Other Cities was not supplied. The chart preserves the reported remain shares without inventing riding-level estimates." } ], "sections": [ [ "A three-to-one Question 10 estimate", "The final 75–25 split concerns remaining in Canada versus beginning the constitutional process for a later binding referendum. Question 10 did not itself ask voters to leave Canada immediately. Its 50-point gap is much larger than the differences on the other supplied questions." ], [ "The autonomy questions do not have one uniform level of support", "Proof of citizenship for provincial voting has the largest supplied yes share at 62%. The four immigration and services items range from 52% to 55%. The judicial-appointment, Senate, federal-program and provincial-law questions range from 49% to 53%, with much smaller point-estimate gaps." ], [ "Regional differences depend on which question is being asked", "The supplied remain figures are 82% in Calgary, 85% in Edmonton and 61% in rural Alberta. On Questions 1–9, the rural yes estimates are higher than the two city estimates. A single general description of an autonomy voter would obscure those question-specific differences." ], [ "The August comparison is a limited additional observation", "The supplied narrative gives an August remain baseline of 69%, six points below the final estimate. Its exact field dates, release date, sample size and recruitment details were not provided, so it is retained as context rather than plotted as a fully documented tracking wave. No individual voter movement is inferred." ], [ "Ten ballots require ten denominators", "The supplied narrative proposes 20–30% ballot drop-off on technical questions, but it does not include the underlying turnout or ballot-completion model. The charts do not adjust results using that assumption. Each question’s undecided and blank-response counts would be needed to estimate an all-respondent ballot-completion pattern." ] ], "mode": "50% live-agent telephone interviews; 50% SMS-to-web panels.", "recruitment": "Described as a stratified random sample of eligible Alberta voters. Telephone selection, SMS-panel recruitment and inclusion probabilities were not supplied.", "weights": "Age, gender, education and region: Calgary, Edmonton, Other Cities and Rural Alberta, using Elections Alberta elector distributions. Numerical targets and design effects were not supplied.", "precision": "The release reports ±3.0 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to a mixed telephone and SMS-panel estimate without documentation of probability recruitment for all components. It cannot be transferred to smaller question-specific or regional bases.", "official": "https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/" }, { "slug": "quebec-final-poll-2026", "kind": "Provincial", "region": "Quebec", "electionLabel": "2026 Quebec general election", "release": "2026-10-04", "start": "2026-10-01", "end": "2026-10-03", "voteDate": "2026-10-05", "n": 1250, "undecided": null, "reportedPrecision": "±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20", "title": "Quebec: PQ 28%, Liberals 24%, Conservatives 21%.", "deck": "The final supplied wave places five parties between 12% and 28%, with sharply different language-group estimates and a fragmented province-wide ballot.", "finding": "4 pp", "findingLabel": "PQ–Liberal gap among decided and leaning respondents", "summary": "The PQ has the largest reported vote share, while the five named parties total 99%. Language-group estimates and the supplied seat ranges add context without turning a plurality into a majority mandate.", "candidates": [ "Parti Québécois", "Quebec Liberal Party", "Conservative Party of Quebec", "Québec solidaire", "Coalition Avenir Québec" ], "values": [ 28, 24, 21, 14, 12 ], "toplineNote": "The supplied party shares total 99%. Missing categories or rounding are not redistributed to an invented other-party share.", "waves": [ { "label": "30 Aug 2026", "release": "2026-08-30", "values": [ 31, 22, 18, 14, 14 ] }, { "label": "20 Sept 2026", "release": "2026-09-20", "values": [ 29, 23, 20, 14, 13 ] }, { "label": "4 Oct 2026", "release": "2026-10-04", "start": "2026-10-01", "end": "2026-10-03", "n": 1250, "values": [ 28, 24, 21, 14, 12 ] } ], "comparisons": [ { "title": "The language-group ballot", "base": "Decided and leaning within each language group; unweighted group counts not supplied", "series": [ "Parti Québécois", "Quebec Liberal Party", "Conservative Party of Quebec", "Québec solidaire", "Coalition Avenir Québec" ], "rows": [ [ "Francophone", 34, 11, 24, 15, 15 ], [ "Non-francophone", 5, 71, 11, 9, 3 ] ], "note": "Each supplied language-group column totals 99%. The submission describes sample composition as 78% francophone and 22% non-francophone, without specifying whether those are weighted or unweighted proportions." }, { "title": "Current preference among recalled 2022 CAQ voters", "base": "Respondents recalling a 2022 CAQ vote; exact subgroup n and question not supplied", "series": [ "Parti Québécois", "Conservative Party of Quebec", "Quebec Liberal Party" ], "rows": [ [ "Recalled 2022 CAQ voters", 45, 32, 12 ] ], "note": "Selected destinations total 89%. Other responses are not inferred. A vote-recall cross-tab is not evidence of reinterviewed voters or an independently verified transition matrix." } ], "seatModel": { "total": 127, "majority": 64, "rows": [ [ "Parti Québécois", 58, 62 ], [ "Quebec Liberal Party", 37, 41 ], [ "Conservative Party of Quebec", 12, 16 ], [ "Québec solidaire", 8, 11 ], [ "Coalition Avenir Québec", 4, 7 ] ], "note": "These are supplied seat-model ranges, not confidence intervals. Riding estimates, assumptions, joint draws and validation were not provided. Endpoints cannot be summed into a single 127-seat allocation." }, "sections": [ [ "A lead in a five-party distribution", "The final ordering is PQ 28%, Liberal 24%, Conservative 21%, QS 14% and CAQ 12%. Across the supplied waves, the PQ declines three points, the Liberals rise two, the Conservatives rise three, QS is unchanged and the CAQ declines two. Those changes do not identify transfers between particular parties." ], [ "Language-group estimates show different competitive structures", "Among the supplied francophone estimates, the PQ is at 34% and the Conservatives at 24%; the other three parties range from 11% to 15%. Among non-francophones, the Liberal estimate is 71%. These group differences help explain why a province-wide average can conceal different local contests, while smaller bases add uncertainty." ], [ "Vote recall adds context with limits", "The submission places 45% of respondents recalling a 2022 CAQ vote with the PQ, 32% with the Conservatives and 12% with the Liberals. The unreported remainder is left unassigned. Recalled behaviour can differ from a verified past ballot, and this cross-tab does not establish that the same voters were interviewed in both elections." ], [ "A supplied range below the majority threshold", "The PQ’s 58–62 seat range is between two and six seats short of the 64-seat majority threshold in a 127-seat chamber. Government formation, confidence arrangements and party cooperation cannot be determined from those ranges alone. No coalition or minority-government outcome is asserted as a fact." ], [ "Concentration and efficiency need riding-level evidence", "The supplied model allocates a larger seat range to the Liberals than to the Conservatives despite a three-point difference in their vote estimates. That is a property of the submitted model output. Auditing its explanation requires riding-level predictions and assumptions rather than a province-wide topline alone." ] ], "mode": "50% live-operator telephone interviews; 50% online panel, conducted in French and English.", "recruitment": "Eligible Quebec voters; stratification by Montreal CMA, Quebec City CMA and Rest of Quebec, age, gender and mother tongue. Frame selection, online-panel recruitment and inclusion probabilities were not supplied.", "weights": "The submission identifies stratification variables but does not separately document post-stratification weights, numerical targets, trimming or effective sample size.", "precision": "The release reports ±2.8 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to a combined telephone and online-panel result without a documented probability design and estimator.", "official": "https://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/en/pressreleases/2026-provincial-election-polling-day-is-october-5/" }, { "slug": "vancouver-final-poll-2026", "population": "Vancouver municipal electorate; eligibility screening was not documented in the supplied text", "region": "Vancouver", "release": "2026-10-16", "start": "2026-10-12", "end": "2026-10-15", "voteDate": "2026-10-17", "n": 800, "undecided": null, "reportedPrecision": "The combined Vancouver / Surrey submission cites ±3.5 percentage points without a separate city-specific precision statement.", "title": "Vancouver: Fry 41%, Sim 37%, others 22%.", "deck": "The supplied final Metro Vancouver tracker places Pete Fry four points ahead of Ken Sim in Vancouver, with a sizeable combined share for other candidates.", "finding": "4 pp", "findingLabel": "Fry–Sim gap in the supplied Vancouver ballot", "summary": "The two named candidates account for 78% of reported support. The remaining 22% is a combined category, not a single challenger or a transferable bloc.", "ballotBase": "Reported candidate preference; decided / leaning treatment not specified", "candidates": [ "Pete Fry", "Ken Sim", "Other candidates" ], "values": [ 41, 37, 22 ], "comparisons": [], "sections": [ [ "A four-point difference in the final snapshot", "The supplied figures place Fry at 41% and Sim at 37%, with 22% across other candidates. The sample size is 800 Vancouver respondents. A city-specific decided-voter count and an undecided share were not supplied." ], [ "The other-candidate group remains substantial", "More than one in five of the reported candidate-preference responses sit outside the two named contenders. Combining those choices is useful for a compact topline but does not reveal which other candidate leads, or how respondents would behave on a different ballot." ], [ "Campaign explanations are hypotheses, rather than measured transfers", "The supplied narrative discusses taxes, housing and the Park Board. No corresponding issue percentages, question wording or earlier Vancouver tracking tables were provided. This report therefore does not attribute the measured ordering to a specific issue or assert that a demographic group switched candidates." ], [ "The pre-election record stays distinct from the result", "Fieldwork ended October 15, with the supplied release dated October 16, before the October 17 vote. This page archives those submitted survey figures; no later election outcome is used to generate or adjust them." ] ], "mode": "Not supplied for the Vancouver study.", "recruitment": "The submission gives a Vancouver sample of 800 but does not specify eligibility screening, sampling frame, selection or recruitment.", "weights": "Not supplied for this city-specific study.", "precision": "The shared submission cites ±3.5 pp but does not establish the Vancouver sampling design or a confidence level for this figure. No conventional margin, candidate-gap significance test or win probability is assigned here.", "official": "https://vancouver.ca/your-government/2026-election.aspx" }, { "slug": "surrey-final-poll-2026", "population": "Surrey municipal electorate; eligibility screening was not documented in the supplied text", "region": "Surrey", "release": "2026-10-16", "start": "2026-10-12", "end": "2026-10-15", "voteDate": "2026-10-17", "n": 700, "undecided": null, "reportedPrecision": "The combined Vancouver / Surrey submission cites ±3.5 percentage points without a separate city-specific precision statement.", "title": "Surrey: McCallum 43%, Locke 38%, others 19%.", "deck": "The supplied final Metro Vancouver tracker places Doug McCallum five points ahead of Brenda Locke in Surrey, with other candidates accounting for 19%.", "finding": "5 pp", "findingLabel": "McCallum–Locke gap in the supplied Surrey ballot", "summary": "McCallum has the largest named share in this snapshot. Without a documented sampling design, undecided treatment or subgroup tables, the figures do not support a certain-winner claim.", "ballotBase": "Reported candidate preference; decided / leaning treatment not specified", "candidates": [ "Doug McCallum", "Brenda Locke", "Other candidates" ], "values": [ 43, 38, 19 ], "comparisons": [], "sections": [ [ "The named-candidate gap is five points", "The supplied Surrey estimate is McCallum 43%, Locke 38% and other candidates 19%, from 700 respondents. The totals describe reported candidate preference; the exact treatment and interview count for undecided or leaning respondents were not supplied." ], [ "Two cities require separate samples", "Surrey’s 700 interviews are distinct from the 800 Vancouver interviews in the same submission. The samples are not pooled into a 1,500-person mayoral survey or assigned one shared sampling margin. Each city’s candidate shares refer to its own electorate." ], [ "Policing and taxes need their own evidence", "The accompanying narrative emphasizes the police transition and municipal tax pressures. It does not include numeric issue measures, regional crosstabs or a time series for Surrey. The report preserves the toplines without inventing neighbourhood results or treating the narrative as a tested causal explanation." ], [ "Preserve the pre-vote snapshot", "The supplied report date is October 16, one day before the municipal election, following October 12–15 interviews. This page records that source timeline separately from its archive publication date. It does not rewrite the survey to match a later counted result." ] ], "mode": "Not supplied for the Surrey study.", "recruitment": "The submission gives a Surrey sample of 700 but does not specify eligibility screening, sampling frame, selection or recruitment.", "weights": "Not supplied for this city-specific study.", "precision": "The shared ±3.5 pp figure is not documented as a Surrey-specific margin. Sample size alone cannot establish it, and it is not applied to this report’s chart or candidate gap.", "official": "https://www.surrey.ca/2026-municipal-election" } ] }