A citizen poll feels like a cold splash of reality. The dominant takeaway is clear: a united opposition list could be the most viable path forward, a conclusion reported by Gazeta Wyborcza. The diary of Adam Michnik references a Kantar Public study commissioned by the Forum Długi Stołu Foundation, yet serious questions linger about what the research really shows.
The democratic opposition appears to have one clear route to govern after the autumn elections. This view emerges from a large-scale, citizen-funded study.
– GW states this loudly.
The poll indicates that the opposition would gain an edge by presenting a single, consolidated list. The analysis suggests that in such a scenario, leaders like Tusk, Hołownia, Kosiniak-Kamysz, Czarzasty, and Biedroń could secure a majority in the Sejm with around 245 seats. In this imagined distribution, PiS would hold about 167 seats and Konfederacja around 48, totaling 215 seats.
According to this scenario, the coalition of KO, Lewica, Polska 2050, and PSL could reach roughly 50.9 percent support, while PiS would hover near 36.1 percent and Confederation around 13.1 percent.
Doubts surrounding the poll
However, concerns surround the study. The head of the National Investigation Group, Łukasz Pawłowski, questions not the opinion itself but describes the work as civil pressure aimed at influencing public sentiment.
The researcher raises several questions about the report’s transparency and methodology:
What exactly were the poll results? Why were the findings not published in the standard way, with complete data, and only Andrzej Machowski’s calculations shared? How many people chose each party, how many answered “I don’t know,” and how many indicated “another party” with a follow-up request about which party? How many respondents rejected participation altogether? Why were other committees not asked directly, for example the Committee of Non-Partisan Local Authorities?
Why does Andrzej Machowski focus only on those who stated an intent to vote and how might information from Kantar about combined responses influence the results have been treated? Were any adjustments made to reflect broader voter intent, and if so, why were these not disclosed? What was the final methodology, and what information about planned methods disappeared from the collective page? Which committees were included, in what order, and who determined the research path—the client or Kantar?
How were seats allocated: by constituencies or through a national, publicly available seat-counting method?
As Pawłowski notes, if GW intends to discuss the findings, it should address these essential questions with full transparency.
gah/wyborcza.pl/Twitter
Source: wPolityce