The final snapshot.
Provincial voting intention
Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied
The supplied party shares total 99%. Missing categories or rounding are not redistributed to an invented other-party share.
Source: Northbound Insights, supplied report figures. Response base: Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Subgroup interview counts were not supplied.
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.
The change behind
the topline.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
Vote share and seats
are different measures.
Supplied seat ranges
127 seats · majority threshold 64 · model not independently replicated
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.
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.
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=1,250
- 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
- 4 Oct 2026
- First publication of this web page
- 25 Oct 2026
- Fieldwork
- 1 Oct 2026 – 3 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible provincial voters in Quebec
- Total interviews
- 1,250
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- Not supplied
- Interview mode
- 50% live-operator telephone interviews; 50% online panel, conducted in French and English.
- Recruitment and sampling
- 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.
- Weighting
- The submission identifies stratification variables but does not separately document post-stratification weights, numerical targets, trimming or effective sample size.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- 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.
- 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
- Separate wave toplines are supplied. Reinterviewed respondents and individual transitions are not documented.
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 4 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.