A platform proposes that left-wing voters choose which candidacy to support in each province on the 29N.

As of October 20, 2026, there is no national agreement between Frente Amplio and Podemos for the November 29 elections: the negotiation ended without a pact when the coalition deadline closed on October 16. Territorial agreements remain in the Canary Islands and the Valencian Community. It is important to distinguish three issues: electoral candidacies, the future organization of deputies, and a possible government agreement; these are not the same and are not resolved jointly (Demócrata, October 16).

The national negotiation is closed without agreement

Frente Amplio maintains the project shared by Movimiento Sumar, Izquierda Unida, Más Madrid, and Comuns, with Ada Colau as the presidential candidate. Podemos has not joined this alliance and will run separately in much of the territory (Demócrata, October 19).

Frente Amplio's last written offer included priority positions for Podemos in Madrid and Catalonia, full participation rights in the candidacies, equitable resource distribution, and a spokesperson role in the future parliamentary group. It was a negotiating proposal, not an approved parliamentary agreement (Offer of October 16).

Podemos responded by proposing territorial agreements that excluded Madrid and Catalonia. It defended preserving its collaboration with ERC and allowing autonomous understandings without conditioning them on a national integration; this formula did not achieve a general agreement (Counterproposal of October 16).

Which agreements remain

• Canary Islands: Nueva Canarias, Podemos, IU, and Movimiento Sumar run under Unidad del Pueblo Canario; this is a territorial agreement, not a national reunification (Demócrata, October 15).
• Valencian Community: Compromís-Front Valencià brings together Compromís, Podemos, Esquerra Unida del País Valencià, ERPV, and other organizations; it constitutes the second exception to the separation between both candidacies (Demócrata, October 19).
• Catalonia: Podemos includes individuals linked to the organization as independents on ERC lists, while Comuns runs with Frente Amplio; this collaboration does not equate to integrating ERC and Podemos into Frente Amplio (Demócrata, October 16).
• Other territories: Frente Amplio has closed alliances with Chunta Aragonesista in Aragón, Ara Més in the Balearic Islands, Somos Asturies in Asturias, and Batzarre in Navarra, without Podemos. In Madrid, lists led by Emilio Delgado and Irene Montero will compete (Demócrata, October 19).

What this strictly means in parliamentary terms

There is no record of a common parliamentary group agreed upon for the next legislature, nor a national pre-agreement for reunification following the failed electoral negotiation. The offer to share leadership of the future group was part of the rejected package, so it should not be presented as a current commitment (Demócrata, October 16).

The parliamentary affiliation of candidates linked to Podemos who run through different territorial formulas cannot be considered decided either. This fit is a different matter from the registration of electoral alliances and is one of the pending issues for the Congress after the elections (Fit in Congress).

In the Senate, there is another electoral agreement: PSOE and Frente Amplio announced joint candidacies, with participation from IU, Movimiento Sumar, Más Madrid, and territorial partners. This does not constitute a national Frente Amplio-Podemos pact nor does it prove an agreement to form a government (Agreement for the Senate).

Promoters of citizen consultations can organize participation and express political positions, but they do not acquire public electoral powers by doing so. In the case of "Ya lo hacemos nosotros," the consulted sources do not verify its legal nature or specific activities: what follows explains the applicable regime if it acts as a private platform.

1. Functions they can perform

A platform can formulate questions, organize voluntary consultations, publish results, hold debates, promote petitions, and mobilize social support. These activities are mainly protected by the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, recognized in Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

Their promoters assume organizational tasks: defining participants and rules, informing about the purpose, managing resources, and explaining how results are obtained. These are private functions, not administrative powers. Article 23 of the Constitution, which recognizes participation in public affairs, does not turn their organizers into electoral authorities.

2. Competencies they do not have

A private consultation does not replace elections or an official referendum. Its results do not elect public representatives, modify laws, alter the electoral roll, nor legally bind the Government or the chambers.

The state consultative referendum under Article 92 of the Constitution corresponds to a public procedure: it is convened by the King, at the proposal of the Prime Minister and with prior authorization from Congress. Organic Law 2/1980 regulates its modalities. Official autonomous and local consultations also require competence and legal authorization.

The platform must clearly identify the private nature of its initiative. It cannot claim electoral administration powers nor present its results as official scrutiny or legally binding mandates.

3. Limits during elections

Defending political ideas is legitimate, but it does not equate to having unlimited freedom to conduct electoral campaigning. The Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime regulates propaganda, campaign periods, advertising, polls, and guarantees among candidacies.

• If the activity solicits votes or acts in favor of a candidacy, its content, financing, and coordination with parties must be examined.
• A private entity cannot be used to conceal contributions or evade electoral spending controls and limits.
• The publication of electoral polls is subject to specific obligations; calling them citizen consultations is not enough.

Promoters also cannot intervene in the electoral roll, safeguard official votes, or carry out the count on their own initiative. Functions reserved for electoral bodies or accredited representatives require the corresponding legal title.

4. Personal data and financing

Those organizing the consultation must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation and Organic Law 3/2018: inform about the responsible party and purpose, collect only necessary data, protect it, and allow the exercise of rights.

Political opinions receive special protection. Participation does not automatically authorize the creation of ideological profiles, sharing information with parties, or sending propaganda. Such processing requires an appropriate legal basis and, when applicable, explicit consent.

Ordinary civic financing must be distinguished from party financing and electoral expenses. The platform must justify the origin and destination of funds according to applicable obligations, without serving as an intermediary for prohibited contributions.

5. Responsibility of promoters

Organizing a private consultation does not constitute an infringement by itself. Responsibility may arise from coercion, falsehoods, data breaches, illicit financing, or electoral non-compliance. To assess this specific platform, its rules, publicity, schedule, financing, and relationship with candidacies would need to be known; its name alone does not allow attributing competencies or presuming irregularities.

For a citizen platform, the decisive factor is what information it publishes and how it presents it, not just its associative or non-profit nature. A participatory consultation, a survey on public matters, and a vote estimate are different products and require different analysis. No sufficient information has been found in the consulted sources to specify the applicable articles, deadlines, and sanctions; therefore, the following is a review guide, not a certification of compliance with Spanish legislation.

1. Distinguish a consultation from an electoral survey

Before publishing, it is advisable to determine whether the results describe only those who participated or if they intend to represent the electorate. An open vote on a website can show the preferences of its participants, but voluntary participation alone does not allow extrapolating to the entire population.

The content also matters: asking about a municipal proposal does not necessarily equate to asking about voting intention, preferences among candidacies, or seat forecasts. The denomination does not resolve the issue: calling a publication a "citizen consultation" does not explain its true nature. The analysis must consider the questionnaire, method, and message with which results are disseminated.

2. Prepare a transparent publication

As good methodological practice —without presenting this list as a verified enumeration of legal obligations—, the publication should explain:

• Who promotes the consultation, who conducts it, and who finances it.
• What population is intended to be studied and how participants are selected.
• How many responses have been received and on what dates.
• What the questionnaire is and how results have been calculated.
• What controls exist against duplicate or automated responses.
• What limitations affect representativeness and interpretation.

The number of participants should not be confused with sample quality. Nor should a margin of error typical of probabilistic sampling be attributed to an open consultation without methodological basis. These problems can give an appearance of precision that the results do not support.

3. Review electoral restrictions before dissemination

To legally answer your question, the current regulation on the publication of electoral surveys, its temporal scope, and the powers of the electoral administration must be checked. Without that verification, it would not be rigorous to set here a number of days of prohibition, point out an exception, or assign a specific sanction.

The review should cover the initial publication and the planned forms of dissemination: website, social networks, newsletters, press releases, graphics, and links to previous results. It should also clarify if there are differences between collecting responses, producing results, and publishing them. It should not be assumed that all these actions receive the same treatment.

4. Separate privacy and electoral communication

If personal data or responses linked to individuals are collected, a specific data protection analysis is needed. A prudent review would examine the purpose, information provided to participants, necessary identification, access to responses, and retention time.

Publishing aggregated percentages and disclosing individual responses are different decisions. So are participating in a consultation and accepting subsequent communications. These purposes should not be mixed nor should participation be interpreted as general authorization for other uses.

In short, before publishing, the platform should have a legal classification of the content, a faithful methodological explanation, and a check of the applicable calendar and restrictions. Specific legal requirements, possible exceptions, and the Spanish sanctioning regime remain unverified here; it would not be correct to replace that verification with general recommendations.