The final snapshot.
Mayoral voting intention
Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied
Undecided respondents are excluded from candidate shares and shown separately above. Percentages may be rounded.
Source: Northbound Insights, supplied report figures. Response base: Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Subgroup interview counts were not supplied.
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.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Time for a new direction at Town Hall
All respondents; exact question and answer options not supplied
Zainab Azim among voters under 35
Reported support within the under-35 subgroup; subgroup n not supplied
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
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.
How to read
this study.
The supplied methodology is preserved alongside its disclosure gaps, so the total sample, ballot base and subgroup estimates can be assessed separately.
Study design and disclosure · n=600
- Research provider
- Northbound Insights
- Report provenance
- Figures, release label and methodology supplied by Northbound for this website update on 25 October 2026. The underlying interviews have not been independently audited here.
- Release date
- 23 Oct 2026
- First publication of this web page
- 25 Oct 2026
- Fieldwork
- 19 Oct 2026 – 22 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible municipal voters in Milton
- Total interviews
- 600
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- 14% of all respondents; not assigned to candidates.
- Interview mode
- Live-operator telephone interviews via landline and mobile, plus targeted online panels. The mode split was not supplied.
- Recruitment and sampling
- 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.
- Weighting
- Post-stratification across ward, age and length of residency. Numerical targets, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±4.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- 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.
- Commissioning / funding
- Not identified in the supplied material.
- Questionnaire / response rates
- Exact wording, order, response options, response and completion rates were not supplied.
- Subgroup bases / design effects
- Unweighted and weighted subgroup bases, weighting distributions and design-effect estimates were not supplied.
- Tracking design
- No earlier comparable wave was supplied for this report.
Sample size alone does not validate a probability margin for a mixed-mode study. Reported margins are retained as source statements in the disclosure record. They are not used as confidence intervals for the charts, point-estimate gaps or subgroup estimates.
The figures,
open to inspection.
- Northbound Insights · report figures and methodologyRelease 23 Oct 2026 · supplied for this website on 25 Oct 2026. Earlier-wave metadata is left blank where unavailable.
- Official election / referendum information ↗Election context and candidate records; not a source or endorsement of this poll.
This report presents the figures supplied by Northbound. It does not reconstruct respondent records, infer missing categories or claim independent verification of the fieldwork. A point-estimate lead is not a forecast of the outcome. Publication standards.