RSS

The Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2012)

07 Feb

The Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2012)

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Feb. 8, 2010
Updated Oct 13,2013

The Recursive True Vote Model analyzes 1968-2012 National Presidential elections.

We distinguish between the True Vote (how people actually voted) and the official, recorded vote as provided by the media. It is an undeniable fact that in every election, the True Vote is never equal to the recorded vote. This is self-evident since the number of votes cast is never equal to the number recorded and therefore the True Vote shares cannot equal the recorded shares.

In the eleven elections since 1968, there have been approximately 80 million net uncounted votes. Net uncounted votes declined from 10.6 million (10%) in 1988 to 5.4 million (5%) in 2000 to 3.4 million in 2004 (3%). Given that the vast majority of uncounted votes are Democratic, the Democratic recorded vote must always understate the True Vote.

In the 1968-2012 elections, the average presidential recorded vote share was 49-45% in favor of the Republican. We will show that the average presidential True Vote share was 49-45% in favor of the Democrats.

The 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national exit polls are on the Roper website . The Democrats led by an average 52-42% margin.

To run the model, just two inputs are required (see below for details):
1. Choose the election by entering the election code (1968-2012)
2. Enter the calculation method (1-5)

Uncounted votes are just one factor why Democratic presidential candidates always do better in the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls than the recorded vote. Since the percentage of net uncounted votes has declined steadily since 1988, they are no longer a major factor in causing the discrepancies. Electronic voting machines have become institutionalized. Touch screen computers (DREs) produce unverifiable results and Optical scanned paper ballots are rarely hand-counted. In addition, invisible central computers that tabulate total votes for each district/county are vulnerable to malicious programming. Votes cast on DREs are lost in cyberspace and cannot be verified. Oregon is the only paper ballot state which mandates hand-counts of randomly-selected counties. Its vote-by-mail system has resulted in much higher voter turnout and nearly fool-proof elections.

It follows that the first step in calculating the True Vote is to estimate the number of uncounted votes. The Census Bureau surveys total votes cast in every election (the margin of error is less than 0.5%). We have the simple formula:
Net Uncounted Vote = Census Total Votes Cast – Official Recorded Vote

The Net Uncounted Vote is greater than zero when the number of uncounted votes exceeds the number of stuffed ballots.
Net Uncounted Vote = Uncounted Votes – Stuffed ballots

Key parameters in calculating the True Vote are a) the number of returning voters from the prior election, b) new voters and c) corresponding exit poll vote shares. In order to calculate a robust estimate of returning voters, we must consider the mathematical constraints. The number of returning voters must be less than the number who actually voted in the previous election. The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if the number of returning voters exceeds the number still living.

We need to estimate voter mortality and turnout of prior election voters. An estimated 5% of voters pass on in the four years from the previous election (based on mortality tables). Vote shares are hardly affected by changes in the rate. The turnout rate of previous election voters still living (“habitual voters”) can be estimated from registered voter turnout. The rate varies from 90-98%, depending on voter interest. It is estimated that in 1992 and 2004, 98% of previous election voters still living turned out to vote due to high voter interest.

Given voter mortality and turnout of living voters from the previous election, we can now calculate an estimate for the number of returning voters.

Vote shares are calculated for all elections using the following methods:
1. Final National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)
2. Returning voters based on previous election recorded vote
3. Returning voters based on previous election votes cast (uncounted votes alocated)
4. Returning voters based on previous unadjusted state exit poll aggregate
5. Returning voters based on previous election True Vote

Method 1:
Final National Exit Poll
The returning voter mix and vote shares are adjusted to match the recorded vote. In elections 1968, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the adjusted mix is impossible. In each election, the mix implies greater than 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 voters.

Method 2:
Returning voters based on previous election Recorded vote

Returning voters = (Previous election Votes Recorded – voter mortality) * Turnout rate
Given returning voters, we easily calculate the number of new voters in the current election:
New voters = Total Votes Recorded in the current – Returning Voters from the previous

Note that by calculating returning voters based on total recorded votes, we understate the Democratic vote share, since the calculation does not include heavily Democratic uncounted votes. This method is analogous to the exit pollsters designing a sample based on the previous election voting demographics.

Method 3:
Returning voters based on previous election Total Votes Cast:
Returning voters = (Previous election Votes Cast – voter mortality) * Turnout rate
New voters = Total Votes Cast in the current – Returning Voters from the previous

Next we need to calculate the number of returning voters for each candidate
Democratic total votes cast in previous = Democratic recorded vote + 75%* uncounted
Republican total votes cast in previous = Republican recorded vote + 25%* uncounted

Method 4:
Returning voters based on previous election unadjusted state exit poll aggregate
Returning voters = (Previous election Votes Cast * Exit Poll – voter mortality) * Turnout
Democratic total votes cast in previous = Democratic unadjusted exit poll * total votes cast
Republican total votes cast in previous = Republican unadjusted exit poll * total votes cast
New voters = Total Votes Cast in the current election – Returning Voters

Method 5:
Returning voters based on previous election True Vote (recursive process)
The current election True vote is a function of the previous.
Returning voters = (Previous election Votes Cast * True Vote – voter mortality) * Turnout
New voters = Total Votes Cast in the current – Returning Voters from the previous

In 1988, Dukakis won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (11,645 respondents) by 49.6-48.4% (11,645 respondents). He won the exit polls in the battleground states by 51.6-47.3%. There were 11 million mostly Democratic uncounted votes, an indicator that Dukakis may have won. But he lost by 7 million recorded votes.

In 1992, Clinton won the unadjusted state exit polls (54,000 respondents) by 18 million votes (47.6-31.7%). He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (15,000 respondents)by 46.3-33.4%. He had 51% in the True Vote Model (TVM). But his recorded margin was just 5.6 million (43.0-37.5%). The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. The NEP implied that there was a 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

In 1996, Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls (70,000 respondents) by 16 million votes (52.6-37.1%). He had 53.6% in the TVM. His recorded margin was 8 million (49.2-40.8%). The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 6 million votes (50.8-44.4%). He had 51.5% in the TVM. But he won the recorded vote by just 540,000. There were 6 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen.

In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million vote margin. He had 53.6% (a 10 million margin) in the True Vote Model But he lost by 3.0 million recorded votes. There were 4 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen. To believe that Bush won fairly in 2004, you must believe a myriad of anomalies.

In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.1-40.3%, a 23 million vote margin – a near-exact match to the TVM. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%. Officially, he had 52.9% and won by 9.5 million votes. The landslide was denied.

In 2012 only 31 states were exit polled., Obama won the True Vote Model by 56-41%. He won the recorded vote by 51-47%. He had 58% of the 11.7 million late recorded votes. The landslide was denied.

Note that the Excel feature to create interactive “what-if” sensitivity analysis tables is not available in the Google Spreadsheet Doc. Therefore, the tables have been pre-calculated for 2004 and 2008. They can be viewed by clicking the Obama and Kerry worksheet tabs.

The six tables contain vote share and margin sensitivity to voter turnout and corresponding vote shares.

Kerry is the winner in all scenarios. He wins if a) Gore is assumed to have had a 46% vote share (he had a 50.3% True Vote, 49.4% in the unadjusted exit poll and 48.4% recorded) and b) Kerry had just 89% of returning Gore voters (he had 91% in the 12:22am NEP).

To run the model, just two inputs are required:
1. Choose the election by entering the election year (1968-2012)
2. Enter the calculation method (1-5)

These default voter mortality and turnout assumptions may be overridden:
1) Prior election 5% voter mortality.
2) Turnout of previous election living Democratic, Republican, Independent voters.

In their 2004 report, the exit pollsters declared that the average 6.5% discrepancy (WPE) in 1250 precincts nationwide was due to the differential response of Kerry and Bush voters to participate in the exit polls. The pollsters hypothesized that 56 Kerry voters responded for every 50 Bush voters – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. They had no rationale for rBr; they never considered fraud. In fact, rBr was contradicted by survey data which showed that response rates were higher in Bush precincts than Kerry precincts. The pollsters also claimed that the precinct voting methods did not indicate fraud, but paper ballots had a 2% discrepancy compared to 6-7% for electronic voting (DRE and Optical scanners)and punch card machines. Lever machines precincts had a whopping 11%.

Exit Pollsters Edison Mitofsky

The pollsters provided stats for 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. Of the 274, 126 exceeded a the state exit poll margin of error (including a 30% “cluster factor”. Of the 126, 123 favored the Republican. Normally, about 14 would be expected to exceed the MoE. Th probability is ZERO (5e-106). In 2004 the MoE was exceeded in 29 states; in 2008, 37 states.

It is important to keep in mind that all exit polls (state and national) are forced to match the recorded vote. The implicit assumption is zero fraud. But we know that the recorded vote never reflects the True Vote due to a combination of uncounted, stuffed and switched votes.

The timeline of the 2004 state exit polls show a steady decline in Kerry’s vote share:
Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: 51%
Best GEO: 51%
Consolidated: 50% (adjusted to recorded votes + pre-election polls)
Final National Exit Poll: 48.3% (forced to match the recorded vote).

About these ads
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 7, 2011 in True Vote Models

 

2 responses to “The Recursive True Vote Model (1968-2012)

  1. James Barber

    April 7, 2011 at 4:55 am

    Richard,
    This is LTC Barber. I have a question. How did you determine that most of the uncounted votes are democratic? The other question is if your model is accurate, why wouldn’t any “smart” democrat look deeper into your information and use it to their advantage? Your information would be a boon to democrats.

    Just like in the census, large population centers have to be approximated. The inability to count every vote or person is a travesty. Like in LA 90044, the population is changing from majority black to majority hispanic and neither demographic was accurately counted in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and recently 2010.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: