Talk:Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election

Incorrectly redacted information in Nanos tracking releases

In the Nanos tracking releases, voter intention and other information is blanked out but the hidden text is still copiable and viewable in part of the English text, and in whole in the French text. Considering this information is only meant to be accessible to subscribers, is it okay to add this information to the wiki page? EDIT: the redacted ballot figures appear to be identical to the Nanos tracking release with data ending July 12, while the other redacted text is that same as what was included in old redacted Nanos reports. These are not up-to-date ballot figures. 2607:FEA8:F1DF:F3C2:750E:309D:9505:ABE0 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Order of the parties in the poll table

Hello everyone. I note that on previous Canadian federal election polling pages, the parties were ordered by popular vote share (in the previous election) in the poll table rather than by number of seats won. For example, in the poll tables for the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections, the NDP was placed before the BQ, having received a larger share of the popular vote than the BQ in the respective previous elections, but fewer seats. Should we continue to apply this precedent here? If so, the order would need to be: CPC, LPC, NDP, BQ, GPC. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Undermedia, I think that makes sense. Precedent on other pages is clear like you said. It also looks like a good rule to follow for a page focused on polling. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

New graph colours

This new graph just added is a problem: the Liberals are in blue and the Conservatives are in red??? That is really going to confuse readers! - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I can only assume that's an inadvertent oversight on the part of the author of the graph. For my part, I'm happy to create and maintain a local regression-type graph like those on last election's polling page, but would need to wait till maybe around ~15–20 polls have been released before the trendlines can be properly computed. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favour of one your usual "R" generated graphs being used instead, they are superior to this sort of spreadsheet graph. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, same here. I'm also in favour of Undermedia's graphs. It was kind of obvious that they were waiting for more polls as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Undermedia, Ahunt, we now have around 10 polls I think. Is that enough to generate the usual R graph? MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Undermedia would be able to tell you! - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Soon friends, soon. I think the magic number will be 15. I normally have it set to use 30 data points to calculate the smooth trendlines, but I'm hoping it will work acceptably with half that many. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The graph

The graph does not appear to be updating correctly.

Of the 7 polls since the election the cpc have been ahead in 2 and the LPC ahead in 5.

However, the graph shows the cpc ahead for almost the entirety.

I do not update the graph, only input data in the ballot intention and preferred prime minister, but there appears to be a discrepancy Mikemikem (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikemikem, I don't think it shows the CPC ahead, it's just that the colour scheme is off, showing the LPC in blue and the CPC in red. (Dang Americans!) I'd say we get rid of the graph for now until Undermedia or Ahunt are able to make a better example. Bkissin (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Check the discussion directly above, User:Undermedia says he will do one of his excellent "R" graphs, just needs a bit more data to run it. I would suggest removing the existing graph in the meantime. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be WP:BOLD and take care of it! Bkissin (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we include these numbers by Frank Graves?

So, Frank Graves (EKOS) posted opinion polling numbers to his personal twitter and I was wondering if we count them or should we wait for the official release? What we did in previous pages was to count them and change the link once the official pdf was online. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I just added an EKOS poll conducted from 19–26 March that's been published on EKOS's website. I think we can infer that the numbers posted on Twitter on 23–24 March were just partial results from this same poll. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Undermedia, thanks for doing it. I tried doing it yesterday, but I've been having trouble with the wifi and my ISP in these strange times.Hopefully things will be fixed soon - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Innovative research April 2, 2020 and undecided voters

The actual numbers referenced show 10% uncertain and 4% would not vote, with 34% Liberal and 23% Conservative. That is, the Lib 40 -- Con 27 numbers in the table are correct when taken as a percentage of decided, intended voters (adj = raw/[0.10+0.04]), but are not directly found in the source document. I am therefore adding the following wording to the article: "The numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters answering each survey." 174.3.236.243 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) --- After some reflection, I've changed this wording to "For surveys that have published the percentage of undecided voters and those refusing to vote, the numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters." 174.3.236.243 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

            --Frankly I think its unprofessional to try and supply a decided vote total for each party when we weren't given that data to begin with. Innovative shouldn't be included if they can't provide a proper decided vote total and that's entirely on them as a polling organization. - P.C  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.187.213 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 

In fact Innovative provided all the data you accuse them of not providing. Please read p. 32 and further information p. 46 of the PDF. It is unprofessional to make comments such as yours. 174.3.236.243 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Abacus has given us a headache.

So, Abacus has decided to give us a headache. https://twitter.com/DavidColetto/status/1253718496250380288, https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1253725396312494086

They've done a recent poll, which we can add easily. But, unfortunately, they've given us numbers for March and February without sample sizes. I don't think we've ever had this scenario before. We've had no MoE with Innovative but not this. So what do we do? Undermedia, Ahunt - MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say wait a day or two to see if they end up posting a proper report on their website. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

^ This. Krazytea(talk) 19:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, wait out on it and see if we get enough details to use or not. They do these polls for free as company PR, so if they want them promulgated then they need to give enough info to do that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, Abacus released this economic release but it did not include the political polling figures. Krazytea(talk) 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Krazytea, all the polls have only been posted to Colleto's Twitter in the last few weeks. It's similar to that period back in July-June when Graves from EKOS only posted numbers there as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Regional polls

Dear all: I notice that the polls currently listed in the "Regional polls" section are a general mess, with links not pointing to the right documents, incorrectly entered sample sizes, etc. Furthermore, I believe we previously had this discussion on the 2019 election polling page about whether we should be additionally documenting the provincial/regional breakdowns from nation-wide polls. Because if we do, for the sake of consistency and completeness, it would need to be done for all nation-wide polls that include regional breakdowns, not just some, as well as for all regions in Canada, not just some (currently there's only Ontario and Quebec). And if we do all that, I'm concerned that this page will end up growing to impractical proportions. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Undermedia, I'm pretty the consensus that Regional polls are only for regionals polls and not regionals subsamples will probably stay. We've had the discussion multiple times. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

PPC

The PPC should probably be confined to other at this point. No one is really prompting for them. Thoughts Ahunt,Undermedia? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We should go with the refs, so if the majority of the pollsters are not reporting polling for them specifically then I agree. At this point they are getting almost zero press coverage and it looks unlikely they will be a factor in the next election, more than any other minor party. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I would support removing both the PPC and Other columns (or leave them both), because if we only remove the PPC, whenever there's the odd poll that actually does report PPC support (in addition to 'Other'), it will be tricky to know what to put in the Other column. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, could we not just total them with "other"? - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with your suggestions, but my concern comes from outside interference. We saw several SPAs suggest that there was an anti-PPC bias on WP, and I would hate for that to happen again because of routine maintenance. Bkissin (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is too bad we cannot use Nanos in our polling lists any longer because of the paywall, they consistently show PPC numbers and the are still high and relevant. Nanos has them at 8.72% on the Prairies, statistically high enough to play a role in the election a la the Greens. Krazytea(talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That is too bad we don't have that data. At those numbers they could be a factor in vote splitting in some ridings. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, Nanos seems to only be public during campaign time now, which is truly a shame, since they are one of the best pollsters when we look at past elections. 2019 was an interesting case where Abacus and Leger actually performed the best. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Well let's hope they get back to pubic polling results! - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So I've been using the data in the oppinion polls to track the PPC on a graph and to look at the polling average, they seem to be approaching 2.5% (currently they are 2.4333333333% on my sheet) at what point do we start considering to track them on the R graph? I think I read before that 2.5% average was the threshold for the green in the past, but I may be mistaken 142.161.249.114 (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I forget what was decided on this question (when do we start including a new 'lesser' party in the graph?) the last time it came up (which would've been at least a few years ago), but a couple of factors that seem relevant to consider are whether the party has a seat in the HoC (the PPC did before last election but no longer does now) and whether most polls are even specifically prompting for/reporting on the party's support, which at this point doesn't quite seem to be the case, though it's fairly close (i.e. 16/41 polls listed since the beginning of April reported PPC support). Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that decision has to be driven by the refs: if they are reporting PPC results then we can include them. I have a feeling that unless they win a seat, after the next election we will see more and more polling companies stop asking about them, basically relegating them to the status of all the other minor parties. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep them in the table either way, since a decent number of polls are indeed reporting them. The current question though is if they should be included in the graph. I think it would probably 'work', technically speaking, though the algorithm would have a lot less data to work with than for the other parties. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother putting them in the graph at this point. The PPC line would be just a very small dribble at the very bottom, with no real trend and wouldn't tell readers anything useful. As I noted above, I think the polls will stop even reporting them after the next election and just lump into "other". - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears there has been a large update of Nanos data from election day up to February 2021 which has contributed many new data points for all parties including PPC.142.161.249.114 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it not feel weird to anyone else that we are including PPC in the campaign period graph but not on the pre-campaign period graph?207.253.200.194 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No, not particularly. They failed to win a seat last election, and for much of the pre-campaign period they were polling very low (i.e. well below the Greens and BQ) or weren't being polled at all by many (possibly most) pollsters. It's only in recent months that their support seems to have risen and an increasing number of pollsters started prompting for them. So far they've been included in every poll in the campaign period, so it now makes more sense to include them in the current graph. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Undermedia: For polls where the PPC is not included specifically, the box in the table should say N/A. I found one example, and the number given appeared to be a guess. Esszet (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sep 2020 Innovative poll overlaps with Aug 2020 poll

It appears that the new Innovative poll ending on 1 Sep 2020 overlaps with their previous poll ending on 18 Aug 2020, as the former's field dates were 6 Aug – 1 Sep while the latter's were 6 Aug – 18 Aug. I'm therefore listing the new poll as a rolling poll and reducing its sample size by the sample size of the previous poll (new sample size = 4,242 - 1,934 = 2,308) as is standard practice with rolling polls. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably the most logical way to deal with that. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Full Nanos numbers since 2015

The Globe and Mail has published a chart with the weekly Nanos numbers going back to 2015.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-data-dive-with-nik-nanos-is-now-the-right-time-for-an-election/

Should we go back and add these numbers/modify previous numbers where there are discrepancies? I would work on this. Lilactree201 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That article seems to be paywalled; I can't access it. Undermedia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Does the web archive work for you? It worked on Safari and Chrome but not Firefox for me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210709152857/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-data-dive-with-nik-nanos-is-now-the-right-time-for-an-election/ Lilactree201 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does (Safari). That's a mountain of data, but if you're up for adding it, be my guest. You could start on 25 Oct 2019 with a sample size of "1,000", and then every week after that would be "1,000 (1/4)". You could simply use that same web archive link for all of them. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will plug away at it. Others welcome to join!Lilactree201 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding work! Thank you for taking the time to add all that data. I'll do a quick 'quality control' review for any inadvertent errors, then update the graph with all these new polls. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Undermedia, I'm back after a long time and I'm so happy Nanos at least shows us the data retroactively and shows it publicly during campaigns. It allows us to have all the data. I personally don't like him putting the numbers behind a paywall but I understand why he did it. (talk) MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Lilactree201 for this find. Truly amazing! MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

11 Aug 2021 Mainstreet poll doesn't add up

Just a note that the numbers for this poll don't seem to add up: 35% LPC + 26% CPC + 16% NDP + 5% BQ + 5% GPC + 6% Other = 93%. And it's not because the undecideds haven't been eliminated because if you add the 12% undecided we're up to 105%. Must be a mistake in the article, so keep an eye out for a correction or a proper report for the poll on Mainstreet's website. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: Full report found, problem solved. Undermedia (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Undermedia, yeah... there was a typo in the news article. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Mainstreet Twitter poll

Are we certain that the Mainstreet poll posted by @Canadianpolling (https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1427630100774858764) Actually exists? It doesn't show up on the 338 website linked to in the tweet, nor in CBC News's official poll tracker, nor on Mainstreet research's official twitter (@MainStResearch) I just can't find a reference to it anywhere outside of this tweet. Typo, fraudulent, or genuine? 194.105.229.243 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The polls exist. They are posted on iPolitics and on Twitter (@elxnometre). The reason we didn't use those sources for the last few Mainstreet is that they do not include MoE and field dates if I remember correctly. Polling Canada does. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Mainstreet rolling polls

That's convenient that iPolitics' Election Barometer is now tweeting the daily Mainstreet rolling poll results, but I'm wondering where the sample size (e.g. 1,571 for the poll ending on 18 Aug) was found? One of our page editors was able to access it from behind the paywall? Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: So I'm able to access this page using an 'incognito' window in Chrome, which appears to be currently displaying Mainstreet's fresh new numbers from this morning (poll ending 19 Aug). There's also a brief methodology statement if you scroll down, giving a sample size of 1433, though I note that as with EKOS they seem to have switched to a 4-day rolling poll (16–19 Aug), so now I'm left wondering if that was also the case for yesterday's Mainstreet poll (sample size apparently 1571). The broader problem though is that this page is updated with the new numbers daily, upon which the details from the previous day's poll disappear, so I don't think it's a suitable link to use for the individually listed polls in the table. Undermedia (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

... unless you archive each day's page with archive.today ... - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A clever suggestion that could be worth a try. I just wonder if the fact that the page is paywalled and requires an incognito browser window to access will be an issue; I've actually never used one of those web archive sites before myself. Perhaps one of our other regular editors would be willing to give this a stab? Undermedia (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Paywalled would probably defeat it. You can give it a try by putting the URL in the top box at https://archive.ph/ I use it all the time to archive refs as I create them, to avoid WP:LINKROT. - Ahunt (talk)

Undermedia, archiving can beat a paywall most of the time. Only some sites don't work. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing any paywalling at https://ipolitics.ca/election-2021/level-2/ and was able to archive it fine at https://archive.today/7nckB - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt, they said they had issues with paywall. So, I guess we have access to it because of that lol. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This all sounds promising. MikkelJSmith2, would you be willing to take on the responsibility of systematically archiving https://ipolitics.ca/election-2021/level-2/ each morning when it gets updated with the new daily numbers? Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Undermedia, I will try. I might be a little late on some days. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; you certainly weren't late this morning. My only remaining concern is whether overtly posting links to 'breached' paywalled content in the poll table could somehow lead to trouble. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Odd, yesterday it did not seem to be be paywalled and today it does. You can only archive it if it is not paywalled. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think what's happening is the archive site 'breaks' the paywall. Undermedia (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving just saves what you can see publicly. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone able to create a new archived link to today's (18 Sep) Mainstreet results? Every time I try to do it, it just sends me to a previously archived version of the page created earlier this morning at 9:30 UTC that still shows yesterday's results. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Nanos daily portal

Looks like Nanos/G&M have made all the Nanos data since 2014 public at a new Nanos data portal. Most of the recent results are there, but there's new data for July 23 and August 6, 2021. And it looks like current daily data starts later this morning. Nfitz (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, added! Kiltarni (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ekos 4 day roll and 3 day roll

Ekos is going to be releasing a 3 day roll and a 4 day roll. Which one should we consider the “official” one to put here? Surely we don’t want to always put 2 overlapping polls that are basically the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikem (talk • contribs)

While I understand them doing an occasional 1-week roll-up like this one to get a larger sample size, releasing both a 3-day and 4-day roll-up seems silly. Let's wait to see what happens and play it by ear; if it comes to it maybe follow the lead of CBC's Poll Tracker and/or 338 Canada. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Mainstreet archived links not working?

It looks like all of our Mainstreet research archived links are broken…anyone know what to do to fix it? ~~Mikemikem

It looks like a temporary server problem at Archive.today. I would just wait and see if they fix it at their end. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. Hopefully it does get fixed that’s basically all of our MS polls. Mikemikem (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I use their service a lot for archiving refs and they have been having some server issues this past week or so. Hopefully it gets cleared up soon. Perhaps I need to make another donation to them? - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Archive Today is working again! - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete Archive.md links?

The Mainstreet archive link for September the tenth is missing the cartogram map, the data tables, the bar chart, and the circle chart is outdated, does anyone know why? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The most recently posted Mainstreet poll is for 9 September. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad, 9 September. Know anything as to why it's incomplete? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of the graphics are there, but it looks like the archiver just failed to retrieve and save the last couple on the page. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, I'll try capturing it again to get all the graphics. LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That is probably the best plan. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like now Sept 9 and Sept 10 are incomplete missing various data tables… is it possible this is due to a change on Mainstreet website, or just incomplete archiving? ~~Mikemikem

Mainstreet is not making this easy for us! I would guess it is a limitation of the archiving service. I am actually amazed that it can archive anything at all, when I look at https://ipolitics.ca/election-2021/level-2/ I see just a log-in page. It may be possible to "work-around" it sort of, by bringing up the graphics as separate pages (right click, open image in new tab) and then archiving that URL. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. I suppose we should be thankful it works at all, and as long as we get the top line figures it’s a good enough link for the table Mikemikem (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

At least all the essential information we need for the table and graph is still there: field dates, sample size, and nationwide numbers for all parties. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Final graph update

Hi all. For the past few days I've been experiencing difficulties updating the graph because there seems to be a variable lag between when new polls are added to the table and when the software that generates the graph is able to "see" them. I've researched the issue a bit and it seems that it's likely a problem on the Wikipedia server end rather than on my end. At this moment I'm still unable to update the graph with the final polls added yesterday evening, but I'll keep trying and get it finalized as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and for working on it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I still can't update it. But I assure everyone it'll be worth the wait for the best polling graph in this whole election campaign. ;) Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally got it done. For anyone who's interested, the precise values of the final trendline positions (which are of course entirely at the mercy of the data in the polling table) are: LPC 31.53%, CPC 31.34%, NDP 18.15%, PPC 7.62%, BQ 6.96%, GPC 3.71%. Out of curiosity, I played around with making the trendlines less sensitive to give a bit less weight to the polls that ended on 19 Sep and particularly those Sunday-only polls (Forum and Nanos—IMHO a poll conducted exclusively on a Sunday seems a bit dubious), and it doesn't make too much of a difference. For example, if I double the number of most recent polls used to compute the trendlines from 25 to 50, the final values become: LPC 31.41%, CPC 31.12%, NDP 18.53%, PPC 7.22%, BQ 7.03%, GPC 3.59%; with the biggest shifts occurring in NDP and PPC support. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help but nerd out some more here, and anyone is welcome to join in. I think this was a most fascinating election for polling: As indicated by the trendlines in the graph, the polls were actually very close for the LPC, NDP and BQ, and the only reason they weren't for the CPC and PPC is obviously due to some methodological anomaly that caused the IVR pollsters to grossly overestimate the PPC (to be fair, Forum had the CPC at 33%, but their poll was the weirdest of all, even if overall more accurate than EKOS's in cumulative error across the parties). Thanks to all who contributed to this page during the election campaign! Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Léger wins 1st prize for the 2nd election in a row. Undermedia (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks fir all your work on this article and the graphs and also for your analysis above. See you next time around for the 45th Canadian general election! - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)