Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Compiled polling/vote chart indicating levels of party support up to the 39th Canadian federal election. From the end of 2005, the shift in support from the Liberals to the Conservatives is evident.

Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election of 2006 (held on 23 January 2006) showed a long period of variable support for the governing Liberal Party of Canada and opposition Conservative Party of Canada. Prior to and throughout much of the campaign, the Liberals held a small lead over the Conservatives; as of early January 2006, the Conservatives had taken the lead. This was confirmed on election day when the Conservatives won a plurality of votes and seats, being empowered to form a minority government in the 39th Canadian Parliament.

Summary

In the leadup to the 2006 federal election, several opinion polls were commissioned to gauge the voting intentions of Canadians, particularly in the wake of Jean Brault's testimony at the Gomery Commission on 7 April 2005. The results of these polls showed a dip in support for the Liberals, which encouraged the Conservatives to seek an early election by tabling a non-confidence motion. However, Liberal support recovered following an agreement with the New Democratic Party (NDP) to support some changes to the federal budget and a number of incidents involving Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Gurmant Grewal that hurt the Conservatives. Consistently since the Brault testimony, the polls have indicated that an election would result in an increase in the number of seats for the Bloc Québécois and NDP, and cyclical gains and losses for the Conservatives inversely to the Liberals.

In November 2005, the first report by Justice John Gomery was released to the public; subsequently, the poll numbers for the Liberals again dropped. Just days later, a new poll (Strategic Counsel: 6 November 2005) showed the Liberals were already bouncing back. On 28 November 2005, the minority Liberal government succumbed to another Conservative non-confidence motion supported by the three opposition parties and the writs for an election were dropped. The Conservatives achieved near parity but, early in the campaign, again fell back behind the Liberals. Renewed accusations of corruption and impropriety at the end of 2005 – amid Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) criminal probes concerning possible government leaks regarding income trust tax changes and advertising sponsorships – led to an upswing of Conservative support again and gave them a lead over the Liberals, portending a possible change in government.

Polling figures for the NDP increased slightly, while Bloc figures experienced a slight dip; figures for the Green Party did not change appreciably throughout the campaign.

Poll results

The dates listed are normally the date the survey was concluded. Most news and political affairs sources use the convention of using the last date that the poll was conducted in order to establish the inclusion/exclusion of current events.

Polling Firm Date Link Liberal Conservative NDP BQ Green
Election 2006 January 23, 2006 HTML 30.2 36.3 17.5 10.5 4.5
Strategic Counsel[1] January 22, 2006 PDF 27 37 19 11 6
Nanos Research[2] January 22 PDF 30.1 36.4 17.4 10.6 5.6
Ipsos-Reid January 22 HTML 27 38 19 12 4
Nanos Research January 21 PDF 28.1 37.0 17.7 11.3 6.0
Strategic Counsel January 21 PDF 27 37 18 11 6
Nanos Research January 20 PDF 29.4 36.2 17.3 11.0 6.1
EKOS January 20 PDF 26.9 37.1 19.5 11.5 4.6
EKOS January 20[3] PDF 24.4 38.4 19.8 11.9 5.4
Ipsos-Reid January 19 HTML 26 38 19 11 5
EKOS January 19 PDF 27.0 37.1 19.7 11.2 4.5
Strategic Counsel January 19 PDF 28 38 17 11 7
Nanos Research January 19 PDF 29.0 35.5 18.8 11.1 5.6
EKOS January 19[3] PDF 27.3 37.4 20.8 10.1 3.9
Strategic Counsel January 18 PDF 28 37 16 12 7
Nanos Research January 18 PDF 30.7 37.0 16.6 10.7 4.9
EKOS January 18[3] PDF 29.3 35.1 18.0 12.6 4.4
Leger Marketing January 17 PDF 29 38 17 11
Strategic Counsel January 17 PDF 25 41 17 12 5
Nanos Research January 17 PDF 31.5 36.9 17.6 10.0 4.0
EKOS January 17 PDF 27.2 36.9 19.6 11.0 4.8
Strategic Counsel January 16 PDF 24 42 17 12 5
Nanos Research January 16 PDF 30 37 18 10 4
EKOS January 16[3] PDF 29.6 35.8 19.4 11.6 3.4
Decima Research January 15 PDF 27 37 18 11 -
Ipsos-Reid January 15 HTML 26 38 19 12 5
Strategic Counsel January 15 PDF 27 40 16 11 6
Nanos Research January 15 PDF 29 37 18 11 5
EKOS January 15 PDF 27.2 38.6 18.6 10.6 4.4
Nanos Research January 14 PDF 30 38 17 10 6
Strategic Counsel January 14 PDF 27 40 16 11 6
Nanos Research January 13 PDF 29 38 16 11 7
Strategic Counsel January 12 PDF 28 38 16 11 6
Ipsos-Reid January 12 HTML 29 37 18 10 5
Nanos Research January 12 PDF 31 40 14 10 6
EKOS January 12 PDF 28.3 37.6 18.1 11.6 3.7
EKOS January 12[3] PDF 27.4 38.1 18.1 11.5 4.5
Strategic Counsel January 11 PDF 27 39 16 12 6
Nanos Research January 11 PDF 29 38 16 12 5
EKOS January 11[3] PDF 28.8 36.3 17.9 13.3 2.8
Strategic Counsel January 10 PDF 28 39 16 12 5
Nanos Research January 10 PDF 30 39 16 12 4
EKOS January 10[3] PDF 29.9 37.1 17.6 11.6 3.2
Strategic Counsel January 9 PDF 28 38 16 12 6
Nanos Research January 9 PDF 31 35 17 13 5
EKOS January 9 PDF 26.8 39.1 16.2 12.6 5.4
Ipsos-Reid January 8 HTML 26 37 18 13 5
Decima Research January 8 PDF 27 36 20 11 5
Nanos Research January 8 PDF 31 34 17 11 6
Strategic Counsel January 8 PDF 29 37 15 13 6
Nanos Research January 7 PDF 32 34 17 11 6
Nanos Research January 6 PDF 32 35 17 10 6
Ipsos-Reid January 5 HTML 31 35 18 10 5
EKOS January 5 PDF 30.8 36.0 17.5 10.6 4.7
Strategic Counsel January 5 PDF 31 33 17 13 6
Nanos Research January 5 PDF 33 34 17 11 5
Leger Marketing January 4 PDF 32 34 16 11 5
Strategic Counsel January 4 PDF 32 32 17 13 6
Nanos Research January 4 PDF 33 35 15 12 5
EKOS January 4 PDF 30.4 36.2 17.9 10.4 4.7
Strategic Counsel January 3 PDF 32 32 17 13 6
Nanos Research January 3 PDF 33 36 15 13 4
Strategic Counsel December 31, 2005 PDF 33 31 17 14 6
Nanos Research December 30 PDF 35 35 14 13 4
Ipsos-Reid December 30 HTML 32 33 18 12 5
Decima Research December 30 PDF 32 30 18 14
Nanos Research December 29 PDF 35 34 14 13 5
Nanos Research December 28 PDF 38 32 14 13 4
Nanos Research December 23 PDF 38 31 15 12 5
Ipsos-Reid December 22 HTML 33 32 16 13 5
Strategic Counsel December 22 PDF 36 29 17 13 5
Nanos Research December 22 PDF 39 29 15 12 5
Environics December 21 HTML 35 30 17 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 21 PDF 33 30 18 14 5
Leger Marketing December 21 PDF 36 28 17 12 5
Nanos Research December 21 PDF 37 29 15 12 6
Strategic Counsel December 20 PDF 34 30 16 15 5
Nanos Research December 20 PDF 37 31 14 13 6
Strategic Counsel December 19 PDF 33 29 17 15 6
Nanos Research December 19 PDF 37 29 16 13 5
Strategic Counsel December 18 PDF 34 29 19 13 5
Pollara December 19 HTML 37 34 17 10 -
Nanos Research December 18 PDF 38 29 16 12 4
Nanos Research December 17 PDF 38 30 15 13 4
Nanos Research December 16 PDF 39 31 14 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 15 PDF 34 30 18 13 5
Nanos Research December 15 PDF 39 33 12 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 14 PDF 34 30 17 14 5
Nanos Research December 14 PDF 39 32 12 12 5
Leger Marketing December 13 PDF 35 29 17 12 6
Strategic Counsel December 13 PDF 34 29 17 14 6
Nanos Research December 13 PDF 38 31 14 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 12 PDF 33 31 17 13 6
Nanos Research December 12 PDF 38 30 13 14 5
Ipsos-Reid December 11 HTML 36 27 17 14 5
Pollara December 11 HTML 38 30 15 12 -
Strategic Counsel December 11 PDF 34 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 11 PDF 39 31 14 13 4
Strategic Counsel December 10 PDF 35 30 15 14 6
Nanos Research December 10 PDF 39 32 14 13 4
Decima Research December 9 PDF 36 27 20 13 4
Nanos Research December 9 PDF 39 30 15 11 4
Strategic Counsel December 8 PDF 36 28 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 8 PDF 41 26 18 11 4
Ipsos-Reid December 8 HTML 34 30 15 14 5
Leger Marketing December 7 PDF 39 27 16 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 7 PDF 36 30 15 14 5
Nanos Research December 7 PDF 40 26 18 11 4
Strategic Counsel December 6 PDF 35 29 16 13 6
Nanos Research December 6 PDF 40 28 17 11 4
Decima Research December 5 34 26 20 14 -
Strategic Counsel December 5 PDF 35 29 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 5 PDF 38 30 16 12 5
Strategic Counsel December 4 PDF 35 29 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 4 PDF 37 30 16 13 5
Strategic Counsel December 3 PDF 34 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 3 PDF 38 29 15 14 5
Nanos Research December 2 PDF 36 31 14 14 5
Ipsos-Reid December 1 HTML 33 31 17 14 5
Strategic Counsel December 1 35 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research December 1 PDF 37 29 15 14 5
EKOS December 1 PDF 34.1 27.4 18.4 14.0 6.0
Strategic Counsel November 30 PDF 35 30 17 14 5
Ipsos-Reid November 28 HTML 31 31 18 15 5
Decima Research November 28 36 28 19 12 -
Strategic Counsel November 27 PDF 35 29 17 14 5
Pollara November 27 HTML 36 31 16 14 -
Environics November 25 35 30 20 14 1
EKOS November 24 PDF 38.7 29.4 16.9 10.6 3.0
Ipsos-Reid November 24 HTML 34 30 16 15 5
Ipsos-Reid November 15 36 27 16 13 6
Decima Research November 14 PDF 33 26 22 13 -
Pollara November 13 36 28 20 - -
Nanos Research November 13 PDF 34 28 20 14 4
Ipsos-Reid November 10 34 28 19 14 4
EKOS November 9 PDF 33.0 27.9 20.9 13.1 4.9
Leger Marketing November 8 PDF 34 26 18 11 7
Decima Research November 7 PDF 33 30 20 14 -
Strategic Counsel November 6 35 28 16 13 8
Strategic Counsel November 3 28 31 20 13 7
Ipsos-Reid November 2 31 30 19 13 5
Nanos Research October 27 PDF 40 28 15 12 4
Ipsos-Reid October 27 38 26 18 11 5
Pollara October 17 38 30 17 - -
Decima Research October 17 PDF 35 29 17 13 -
Environics October 16 38 27 20 10 -
Strategic Counsel October 13 PDF 38 25 15 14 -
Pollara October 2 36 30 19 11 -
Ipsos-Reid September 29 37 27 17 14 4
Decima Research September 26 PDF 36 29 17 13 -
Praxicus September 23 33 29 20 - -
Strategic Counsel September 13 35 28 17 13 7
Leger Marketing September 11 PDF 40 24 15 13 5
Ipsos-Reid August 22 36 28 17 11 6
Strategic Counsel August 15 36 28 17 - -
Nanos Research August 8 PDF 39 25 19 13 -
Environics July 28 HTML 34 31 20 11 -
Decima Research July 25 PDF 39 24 19 14 -
Pollara July 18 38 27 15 13 -
Strategic Counsel July 16 35 26 19 13 7
Pollara June 28 36 29 18 11 -
Ipsos-Reid June 28 35 27 18 13 6
Decima Research June 20 PDF 37 25 20 13 -
Ipsos-Reid June 20 34 29 16 12 6
Strategic Counsel June 11 34 26 19 13 9
Pollara June 6 38 27 19 13 -
Decima Research June 5 PDF 37 23 21 13 -
Decima Research May 22 PDF 36 27 21 13 -
Leger Marketing May 22 HTML 38 27 17 12 4
Ipsos-Reid May 20 34 28 17 - 6
Strategic Counsel May 18 33 30 19 12 6
COMPAS May 17[4] PDF 29 38 17 13 -
EKOS May 17 PDF 34.7 28.3 18.4 12.6 5.6
Environics May 17 33 31 22 10 -
Decima Research May 15 PDF 32 31 19 14 -
Ipsos-Reid May 14 27 31 19 13 6
Strategic Counsel May 10 27 31 20 14 7
Decima Research May 8 PDF 37 28 18 12 -
Ipsos-Reid May 7 32 31 16 12 5
Nanos Research May 5 36.1 29.5 17.9 12.2 4.3
Pollara May 4 31 36 17 15 -
Decima Research May 2 PDF 32 29 20 15 -
Ipsos-Reid April 30 30 33 17 12 5
EKOS April 28 PDF 32.5 30.5 19.0 12.0 5.5
GPC P.A. April 28 33 30 13 13 10
Strategic Counsel April 28 30 28 18 16 10
Ipsos-Reid April 26 31 34 18 11 5
Decima Research April 24 PDF 27 32 21 15 -
Ipsos-Reid April 22 30 35 18 12 5
Pollara April 21 31 35 18 12 -
Nanos Research April 18 31.6 37.9 14.9 11.9 3.8
Decima Research April 17 PDF 28 35 18 14 -
Ipsos-Reid April 15 27 36 15 10 2
COMPAS April 14 30 34 18 15 1
Environics April 14 27 33 24 11 2
Environics April 12 36 30 19 11 4
Ipsos-Reid April 12 27 30 19 12 7
Decima Research April 10 PDF 31 32 19 14 -
EKOS April 9 PDF 25.0 36.2 20.5 12.6 5.0
Ipsos-Reid April 9[5] 34 30 15 10 -
Last election 28 June 2004 HTML 36.7 29.6 15.7 12.4 4.3
  1. ^ Strategic Counsel polls from November 27 onwards are multi-day polls. Each new poll removes approximately 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  2. ^ Nanos polls from December onwards are 3-day polls. Each new poll removes the 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  3. ^ Various EKOS polls contain results from a single night of polling only. They have fewer respondents than most other polls and, thus, EKOS notes that they are not as credible; however, they are intended to provide a general indication of daily polling trends.
  4. ^ This Compas poll was taken over the course of a single day.
  5. ^ Polling for this data mostly occurred before Jean Brault's Gomery Inquiry testimony was released.

NB: The margin of error in these surveys is typically between 2.5 and 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. See the links for actual error values associated with particular surveys. Note also that because these figures are national percentages, they may not reflect the expected number of seats won by each party. Indeed, the sample size in many polls is not sufficient to give a statistically accurate prediction in individual ridings, and hence the expected number of seats.

All polling companies rely on cooperation from individuals contacted over the phone. The major companies claim a typical response rate is between 20 and 35 percent. link

Seat predictions

Several websites, polling firms and notable Canadians devised various method of projecting the final election result. Included below are those cited in Andrew Coyne's blog. [6]

Projector Conservative Liberal NDP BQ Other
Final Results HTML 124 103 29 51 1
ElectionPrediction.org 118 104 29 56 1
democraticSPACE.com 128 94 29 56 1
UBC Election Stock Market [7] 127 93 33 54 1
jord.ca 135 72 38 62 1
Loblaw Election Pool 136 89 26 57 0
Laurier University [8] 140 78 33 56 1
Andrew Coyne [9] 140 81 31 54 2
TrendLines Federal & Provincial Riding Projections 140 75 35 57 1
ElectionPolls 141 79 30 58 1
PinnacleSports.com[dead link] 146 74 31 57 0
Ipsos-Reid [10] 148-152 62-66 34-38 56-60 -

See also

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006&oldid=2387195"