RSS

Monthly Archives: June 2011

2009 New Jersey Governor True Vote Analysis

2009 New Jersey Governor True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

July 6, 2011

In the New Jersey Governor 2009 election, Christie (Rep) defeated the incumbent Corzine (Dem) by 99,000 recorded votes (48.7-44.6%). Third-parties had 6.7%. But did he win the True Vote?

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Corzine may very well have won.

http://richardcharnin.com/2009NJGovTrueVote.htm

To believe the NJ recorded vote requires several implausible assumptions:
1) McCain voter turnout exceeded Obama turnout by 65-55%.
2) Corzine had a 73% share of Obama voters; Christie had 20%.
3) Corzine had a 5% share of McCain voters; Christie had 87%.

The number of returning voters is a function of the previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Obama won the NJ recorded vote by 57-42%. But he won the unadjusted exit poll by 64-35% (1582 respondents). He won the True Vote Model by 61-38%.

Given the total 2009 vote, we calculate new voters as follows:
2009 Vote (2367k) = returning 2008 voters (2242k) + New voters
New voters = 125k = 2367k – 2242k

It is important to view the effects of alternative assumptions. The Sensitivity Analysis table displays various vote share scenarios. The following scenarios assume 61.7% McCain turnout and 57% Obama turnout.

If Corzine had 50% of new voters and 50% of returning third-party voters and…
1- 5% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 70,000 votes (48.1-45.1%).
2- 9% of McCain and 81% of Obama voters, he wins by 248,000 votes.
3- 8% of McCain and 79% of Obama voters, he wins by 177,000 votes.
4- 7% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 106,000 votes.

The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote.

They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It’s ten years and counting since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

 

2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

July 11,2011

In the 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Kloppenburg (Ind) apparently won by 200 votes. But two days later, 14,000 votes were “found” in Waukesha County. Prosser (Rep) was declared the unofficial winner by 7,000 votes. The subsequent recount was a travesty in which scores of slit ballot bags were photographed, as were poll tapes dated a week before the election. A stack of 50 consecutive Prosser ballots were found in Verona where Kloppenburg won 67% of the recorded vote; the probability is effectively absolute zero (0.33^50).

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Kloppenburg won the election.
http://richardcharnin.com/2011WITrueVote.htm

Assuming a 50% turnout of both Obama and McCain voters, the recorded margin required that Kloppenburg must have won an implausibly low 81% of returning Obama voters while Prosser had 93% of returning McCain voters. If Kloppenburg had 88% of Obama voters and split 70,000 returning third-party and new voters with Prosser, then she won by 99,000 votes with a 53.3% vote share.

The sensitivity analysis tables for Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Waukesha display vote shares and margins for 25 turnout and vote share scenario combinations.

Kloppenburg won Milwaukee County by 29,700 recorded votes, 56.4-43.4% (Obama had 67.3%). In order to match the recorded vote, Prosser had to win 20% of Obama voters and 95% of McCain voters (assuming an equal 50% Obama/50% McCain voter turnout). Obama had a 36% margin compared to just 13% for Kloppenburg. Are we to believe that Prosser won 1 out of 5 returning Obama voters? If we assume that Kloppenburg had 90% of Obama voters, then she won by 61,000 votes with a 63% share. One must conclude that election fraud cut Kloppenburg’s margin in Milwaukee County by approximately 31,000 votes.

Prosser won Waukesha County by 59,500 recorded votes, 73.8-26.2% (Obama had 37.7%). In order to match the recorded vote, Prosser had to win 35% of Obama voters and 97% of McCain voters (assuming an equal 55% Obama/55% McCain voter turnout). Are we expected to believe that more than 1 in 3 Obama voters defected to Prosser? That is beyond implausible. On the other hand, if we assume that Kloppenburg won a very plausible 90% of Obama voters, then it appears that election fraud inflated Prosser’s Waukesha margin by around 23,000 votes.

The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes. Typically, the number of returning voters is a function of prior election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Annual Voter mortality is 1.25%, therefore approximately 3% of 2008 voters passed on prior to the election. New voters were assumed to be split equally between Kloppenburg and Prosser.

Given the 2010 recorded vote, we calculate new voters as follows:

Total Votes = returning 2008 voter turnout + New 2010 voters
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It’s ten years and counting since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

 

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis: FL, OH, PA, WI, NJ

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis: FL, OH, PA, WI, NJ

Richard Charnin

July 6, 2011

The conventional wisdom is that the 2010 midterms were a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than in 1994. True, the party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote in virtually every election. There is no reason to suspect that 2010 was any different.

http://richardcharnin.com/2010GovTrueVote.htm

The GOP won Governor races in FL, OH, PA, WI and NJ (2009). They won the official recorded vote. But did they win the True Vote?

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that the Democrats very likely won FL, OH, PA and NJ – and may have won WI. Returning voters are based on the 2008 True Vote, not the recorded vote. Average 70% returning McCain voter turnout is assumed, compared to just 62% for returning Obama voters. Obama’s True Vote share in the five states was 4.3% higher than his recorded share.

Florida
Scott (Rep) won by 49.6-48.4% (61,000 votes).
Sink won the exit poll (3156 respondents) by 50.8-45.4% (282,000 votes).
The TVM indicates that Sink won by 317,000 votes with a 52.5% share.
If Sink had just 86% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, she wins by 17,000.

Ohio
Kasich (Rep) won by 77,000 votes (49.8-47.8%).
Strickland (Dem) won the exit poll (3305 respondents):49.9-47.4% (101,000).
Strickland won the True Vote by 338,000 (52.2%).
If Strickland had 81% of Obama voters and 11% of McCain’s, he wins by 51,000.

Pennsylvania
Corbett (Rep) won by 357,000 recorded votes.
Corbett won the unadjusted exit poll: 54.3-45.3%.
If Onorato(Dem) had 83% of Obama voters and 8% of McCain’s, he wins by 83,000.

Wisconsin
Walker (Rep) won by 105,000 recorded votes (52-47%).
Walker won the unadjusted exit poll: 52.4-46.0%.
If Barrett (Dem) had 87% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 28,000.

New Jersey (2009)
Christie (Rep) won by 99,000 votes (48.7-45.6%).
If Corzine (Dem) had 77% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 76,000.

The True Vote Model determines a) a feasible estimate of the breakout of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of vote shares in the current. The number of returning voters is a function of previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and an estimated turnout.

The 2008 Presidential election is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. The vote shares are derived from the final exit polls. Annual voter mortality is 1.25%. Given the 2010 total vote, new voters are calculated as:
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout

The number of third-party 2008 voters is given. But the 2010 exit polls indicated that there were more returning third-party voters than were still alive. This was also the case in 2008. According to the Final 2008 National Exit Poll, there were 5 million returning third-party voters – but there were only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004. Which is correct?

In the 2010 exit polls, returning third-party and New voter percentages are given but corresponding vote shares are N/A. Inquiring minds would like to know why. In order to match the recorded 2010 vote, the GOP candidate had to win 55-60% of new and returning third-party (Other) voters. In the True Vote Model, returning third-party and new voters were assumed to be split equally between the Democrat and the Republican.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It is ten years since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

 

2010 PA, WI and IL Senate Elections: A Comparative Demographic and True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 20, 2011

This analysis was updated May 7,2012 to include unadjusted 2008 state presidential exit poll statistics.

The GOP won the 2010 WI, IL and PA senate recorded votes. But did they win the True Vote?

http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateComparativeSummary.htm

Obama had a 56.2% recorded share in Wisconsin. He had a whopping 63.2% in the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll. But the popular progressive Sen. Russ Feingold lost by 5% in a traditionally progressive state. How does one explain Feingold’s 5% loss? He had 56% in 2004. Was it due to unverifiable touch screens (DRE) and/or the central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/WI2010SenateTrueVote.htm

Obama had a 61.9% recorded share in Illinois. He had a whopping 66.3% in the unadjusted exit poll. But the progressive Democrat Giannoulias lost by 2%. He led the Registered Voter (RV) polls by 42-38 and the Likely Voter (LV) polls by 43-42. He won the unadjusted exit poll by 51.0-47.0 (144,000 votes), Was the loss due to unverifiable DREs and rigged central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

Obama had a 54.5% recorded share in Pennsylvania. He had a whopping 63.8% in the unadjusted PA exit poll. But the progressive Democrat Sestak lost by 2% He led the RV polls by 47-43 and trailed the LV polls by 49-45. He led the exit poll at 10:15pm but fell behind at 1:17am as the poll was being matched to the vote with no change in respondents. The unadjusted exit poll was a virtual 49.8-49.9% tie. Was the loss due to unverifiable DREs and rigged central tabulators that miscounted the optiscan ballots?
http://richardcharnin.com/PA2010SenateTrueVote.htm

In 2008, Oregon voted 56.7% for Obama, nearly matching the OR True Vote Model. He had 58.2% in the exit pollster telephone poll. As a battleground state, Oregon should have been representative of the national electorate. Senator Ron Wyden led by a steady 20% in pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls and won a 57% recorded share, matching Obama’s share.
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

Each of these battleground states shifted to the GOP and Wyden won Oregon in a landslide. Why did they differ from Oregon? Was it because Oregon’s recorded vote reflected the true intent of the voters? Was it due to the fact that Oregon is a 100% paper ballot state? Or that Oregon mandates hand-counts of randomly selected counties – a clear deterrent to election fraud?

Oregon was the only battleground state in which Kerry’s vote share exceeded Gore’s 2000 share. Since the 2000 election, Oregon’s recorded vote share has consistently matched the pre-election polls and the unadjusted national exit polls.

Table 1 is a comparison of the Wisconsin, Pensylvania and Illinois Final Exit Polls (i.e. recorded vote) and the True Vote Model. Note that all Final Exit Poll demographics understated the Democratic share as they were forced to match the recorded vote.

These are the key results:
– Final exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote by assuming that nearly one in six returning Obama voters defected to the GOP.
– Vote shares were n/a for the 6% that were returning 2008 third party (“Other”) and new (“DNV”) voters.
– The percentage mix of returning third-party (“Other”) 2008 voters invariably indicated that there were more returning third-party voters voters than actually voted in 2008.

In the three elections, the Democrats…
– lost the average recorded vote by 2.4% but won the True Vote by 3.2%, even assuming a 10% GOP edge in 2008 voter turnout.
– won returning 2008 Obama and McCain voters by a 46.7-45.1%
– won the “When Decided” category by 50.0-47.6% (the exit pollsters did not force a match to the recorded vote).
– led the GOP in Party ID by 40.3-36.0%.

As always, exit poll weightings and vote shares for all categories were rounded to the nearest 1%. There is no reason why they are not displayed to the nearest tenth of a percent – unless the pollsters want to fudge the vote shares to match the recorded vote – which they do anyway. After all, more than 17,000 voters were interviewed in the National Exit Poll and approximately 2000 in each state. Analysts want to see the unadjusted, “pristine” numbers – but the NEP won’t allow that. They want to keep us guessing.

The conventional wisdom is that the 2010 midterms were a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than 1994. Yes, the party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. The unconventional wisdom is that the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote in every election. There is no reason to suspect that 2010 was any different.

The media pundits accept the recorded vote and final exit polls as gospel and never question the official results. And they never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for the exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote.

Historically, the strong correlations between a) pre-election registered voter polls and unadjusted exit polls and b) pre-election likely voter polls and final exit polls (i.e. the recorded vote), is a clear indication of election fraud. Likely voter (LV) polls are a sub-sample of registered voter (RV) polls. We have unverifiable elections and a strange reluctance of the Democratic leadership to do anything about it.

Let’s consider the 2010 senate pre-election polls. Based on 37 LV polls (the GOP led the average by 48.1-43.5%), the pre-election model predicted a 50-48 Democratic Senate.
http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateMidtermsPostElection.htm

CNN/Time provided RV and LV polling data for 18 Senate races (Table 1). The Democrats led a combination of 18 RV and 19 LV polls by 45.2-44.6% giving them a 53-45 seat majority.
The Democratic RV margin was approximately 5% higher than the LV margin.

RV polls were not listed in realclearpolitics.com final polling averages. The Democrats led the average RV poll by 49.2-40.6%. They also led the corresponding LVs by 46.6-45.8%. The Democratic margin was 8% higher in the RV polls.

The 2010 Final National Exit Poll indicated that 45% of the electorate were returning Obama voters and 45% were McCain voters. Obama’s recorded vote margin was 52.9-45.6%. Of course, the pundits will claim that the 7.3% discrepancy was due to millions of unenthusiastic Democrats who did not return to vote in 2010.

The pollsters make adjustments to the number of returning voters (the “mix”) and the vote shares in order to match the vote count. Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million, but his True Vote margin was at least twice that. His recorded share understated his True vote share by 4-5%. If the 2010 NEP returning voter mix is adjusted to match the 2008 recorded share (53-45%), the average Democratic share is within 1% of the GOP share – and matches the pre-election RV polls. The adjusted 53% Democratic share of the 2010 electorate is 5% lower than Obama’s True share.

Table 2 is a comparison of 18 pre-election Registered (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls and the recorded vote. Democrats led the RV poll average by a solid 46.4-41.1%. They led the LV sub-sample by 46.6-45.8%, within 0.4% of the recorded 48.3-47.9% share.

Table 3 is a comparison between the final pre-election LV polls, the preliminary exit polls and the recorded shares. There was a 2.9% discrepancy in margin between the average recorded vote and the exit poll. The final RCP LV projected average margin exceeded the recorded margin by 2.2%.

Table 4 displays Gender vote shares in the Final exit polls.

Table 5 displays Final state exit polls with the returning voter mix adjusted to match the 2008 recorded vote. The resulting vote shares closely match the pre-election RV polls – and the True Vote.

http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

 

To believe that Bush won in 2004, you must also believe that…

To Believe that Bush won in 2004, you must also believe…
Richard Charnin

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

Do you believe the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)? The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%).

If you believe it, then you must also believe in miracles. The Final indicates that there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still living in 2004 – a 110% turnout. The pollsters had to create 6 million Bush phantoms in order to force the Final to match the recorded vote.

It’s basic Logic 101: If an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters is required for the 2004 National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, then the 2004 recorded vote must also be impossible. Ergo, the FINAL exit poll and the official vote count must both be fraudulent.

And if you still believe in 6 million Bush phantoms, then you must NOT believe:
1) the unadjusted NEP (13,660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
2) the unadjusted state exit polls (76,192 respondents). Kerry had 51.1%.

Let’s calculate the returning Gore and Bush percentage mix of 2004 voters, assuming 1.25% annual mortality and 97% Gore/Bush turnout of living voters.

We apply the following methods:
1)Votes cast: Gore 51.0m recorded +4.5 of 6m uncounted: Gore by 50.0-47.3%.
Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate: 41.0/38.2%
Kerry wins by 53.2-45.4%

2) 2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate: Gore by 50.8-45.5%.
Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 vote: 41.4/37.0%
Kerry wins by 53.9-44.7%

3)2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Gore by 48.5-46.3%
Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate: 39.4/37.6%
Kerry wins by 52.9-45.7%

4)2004 National Exit Poll (adjusted to matched recorded vote)
Returning Gore/Bush share of 2004 electorate:37/43% (impossible Bush turnout)
Bush by 50.7-48.3%

If you want to maintain your sanity, read this: Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide

View the 2004 unadjusted state and national exit polls

Given the 2000 recorded vote, unadjusted NEP (13660 respondents) vote shares and a 98% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters, Kerry needed just a 73% turnout of Gore voters to TIE Bush. For Bush to win his 3.0 million recorded vote “mandate”, there had to be a 64% turnout of Gore voters. If you believe that, there is a great Chinese restaurant in lower Manhattan near a famous old bridge that is for sale. Assuming an equal 98% turnout of Gore and Bush voters, Kerry won the True Vote by more than 10 million votes with a 53.6% vote share.

Consider the following myths and anomalies about the 2004 election.

1- Myth: The media exhaustively analyzed state and national pre-election /exit poll data and documented evidence of vote suppression and miscounts.
Fact: raw exit poll precinct data has never been made public. And the pundits have failed to explain the impossible anomalies in the final national and state exit polls.

2- Myth: There are many explanations as to why the exit polls were wrong.
Evaluation of the Edison Mitofsky Election System

Kerry voters sought to be interviewed; Bush voters were reluctant; young interviewers sought out Kerry voters; returning Gore voters lied to the exit pollsters and said that they voted for Bush in 2000; exit polls are not random samples; exit polls in the U.S. are not designed to catch election fraud; early exit polls overstated the Kerry vote; women voted early; Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry, etc.
Fact: none are supported by the evidence. In fact, they are refuted by the exit pollsters own data and timeline.

3- Myth: The votes were fairly counted.
Fact: There is no way to prove that. Voting machines are vulnerable and the code is proprietary; there is no chain of evidence or hand-recounts of paper ballots. The 2004 Vote Census indicates that 125.7 million votes were cast and just 122.3m recorded. Investigative reporter Greg Palast provided government data which confirmed the Census: at least 3 million ballots were never counted.

4- Myth: Democrats failed to attract first-time voters.
Fact: According to the National Exit Poll (NEP), the Democratic candidates won first-time voters by solid margins in every election since 1992. In 2008 Obama won new voters by 71-27%. The 2004 NEP timeline indicated that Kerry had 62% of new voters at 4pm, 59% at 9pm and 57% at 1222am. But the Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicated that Kerry had just 54% of new voters, a massive 8% decline from the earlier share.

5- Myth: Bush’s 48% Election Day approval rating was not a major factor.
Fact: Since 1976 all presidential incumbents with less than 50% approval lost re-election (Ford, Carter, Bush 1). Incumbents above 50% won (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton).
There was a near-perfect 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly approval rating and the average of the national pre-election polls. The correlation was confirmed when Kerry won the National Exit Poll by 51-48%.

6- Myth: Bush gained 9% over his 2000 vote in heavily Democratic urban locations.
Fact: That is an Urban Legend. It is counter-intuitive: Bush lost 3% in highly Republican small towns and rural areas. He stole millions of votes in urban and suburban locations.

7- Myth: Late voters came out for Bush.
Fact: Bush had 51.5% of the first 115.8 million recorded votes. Kerry had 54.6% of the final 5.3 million. Kerry led by a constant 51-48% in the National Exit Poll timeline from 8349 to the final 13660 respondents

8- Myth: The final pre-election polls did not match the exit polls.
Fact: After undecided voters were allocated, the weighted pre-election state (Kerry 47.9-Bush 46.9%) and national polls (Kerry 47.2-46.9%) closely matched the aggregate weighted unadjusted state (51.7-47.0%) and national exit polls(51.1-47.9%).

9- Myth: Bogus assumptions were used in the pre-election Election Model which forecast that Kerry would win 337 electoral votes.
Fact: The only (conservative) assumption was that Kerry would capture at least 75% of the undecided vote. Popular and electoral vote projections were confirmed by the 2004 Election Simulation and True Vote Model.

10- Myth: There is no evidence that undecided voters break for the challenger.
Fact: Historical evidence shows that undecided voters break for the challenger at least 80% of the time – especially when the incumbent is unpopular. Bush had a 48% average approval rating. World-class pollsters Harris and Zogby reported that late polling indicated Kerry would win 60-80% of the undecided vote. Gallup allocated 88% of undecided voters to Kerry.

11- Myth: Bush was leading in the final pre-election polls.
Fact: Kerry led Bush by close to 1% in the weighted state polls They were tied at 47% based on the national 18-poll average. After allocating the undecided 5%, Kerry was a 51-48% winner.

12- Myth: Non-response exit poll bias (reluctant Bush responder) was the reason 43 states red-shifted from the exit polls to the recorded vote to Bush.
Fact: Response rates were lowest in Kerry urban strongholds and highest in Bush strongholds.
Fact: The rBr hypothesis was proven false by: US Count Votes

13- Myth: It was just a fluke that Oregon was the only battleground state where Kerry did better than Gore.
Fact: Oregon is the only state which votes by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots AND mandates hand counts of randomly selected counties – a powerful election fraud deterrent. Kerry did worse than Gore in the other battleground states because none of them had an equivalent fraud deterrent. DRE touchscreen computers that were used to calculate 30% of the votes are unverifiable. Optical scanned paper ballots were not hand-counted.

14- Myth: exit polls did not indicate that electronic voting machines are fraudulent.
Fact: All voting methods had high discrepancies – except for paper ballots which had just a 2% average discrepancy. Lever machine precincts had the highest (11%) discrepancies. Unverifiable touch screen (DRE) and optical scan precincts each had 7%. There were 88 reported touchscreen vote switching incidents – 86 switched votes from Kerry to Bush (a zero probability).

15- Myth: The exit polls behaved “badly”.
Fact: Final state and national exit polls are ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote. It’s standard operating procedure. But the media pundits assume a fraud-free election. Millions of uncounted votes prove that elections have been anything but fraud-free. And the 6 million phantom Bush voters required by the Final 2004 National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote proves that it cannot be correct.

16- Myth: Kerry led in the early exit polls, but Bush passed him in the final.
Fact 1: Kerry led the National Exit Poll (NEP) by a constant 51-48% from start to end. He led at 4pm (8349 respondents), 730pm (11027) and 1222am (13047). He led the state aggregate unadjusted state exit polls by 51.1-47.9%. He won the unadjusted NEP (13660) by 51.7-47.0, but Bush won the adjusted Final NEP (13660) by 51-48%. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote.

Fact 2: It is a mathematical impossibility that 613 additional exit poll respondents could cause Kerry’s 51-48% margin (at 12:22am after the polls closed) to flip to Bush. And they didn’t. Kerry led the unadjusted 13660 by 51-48%. But the Final NEP (13660) was forced to match the recorded vote by switching respondents from Kerry to Bush.

17- Myth: The exit poll margin of error was too low.
Fact: Even assuming a 60% “cluster effect”, the probabilities were near zero. The exit poll discrepancies exceeded the MoE in 29 states for Bush and just one for Kerry – a zero probability. Assuming a 30% cluster effect, the MoE was exceeded in 24 states for Bush.

18- Myth: There is nothing suspicious about the fact that all 21 Eastern Time Zone states red-shifted from the exit poll in favor of Bush.
Fact: The probability of the one-sided red shift is equivalent to coin-flipping 21 consecutive heads: 1 in 2 million. But 14 exit polls deviated beyond the margin of error – a ZERO probability.

19- Myth: Exit polls are not true random samples.
Fact: Exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll and Methods Statement that respondents were randomly-selected and there is an overall 1% margin of error for 10,000 respondents. But there were over 13,000 respondents. The MoE was 1.1% after adding a 30% “cluster effect”

20- Myth: Bush voters were reluctant to respond to exit pollsters.
Fact: This is contradicted by the Final National Exit Poll. The Final indicated that returning Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the 2004 electorate compared to just 37% for Gore voters (i.e. there were 7 million more returning Bush than Gore voters). But Gore won the unadjusted exit poll by 50-45% (3-6 million votes). The rBr canard was also contradicted by a linear regression analysis. Non-response rates were highest in Kerry strongholds, indicating that most non-responders were in fact Kerry voters.

21- Myth: Ohio, Florida and National exit polls show that Bush won.
Fact: FINAL State and National exit polls are ALWAYS adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote even when the votes are miscounted – as they were in 2004. Unadjusted state and national exit polls showed Kerry winning by 54-45% in Ohio, and 51-48% in Florida. He won by 52-47% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll.

22- Myth: The Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix is possible. After all, it’s just a poll.

Fact: The 43/37 mix was not a polling result. It was contrived to force a match to the recorded vote. This is the incontrovertible proof: Kerry had 7074 (51.7%) of the UNADJUSTED 13660 NEP respondents; Bush had 6414 (47.0%). Of the 13660, 3182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1257 (39.5%) said Bush, 1221 (38.4%) said Gore. When the 39.5/38.4 mix is applied to the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry has 51.7%, EXACTLY MATCHING THE UNADJUSTED NEP. This exposes the Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix. It is additional proof that mix was a FORCED CONTRIVANCE to MATCH the BOGUS RECORDED VOTE and NOT an actual sample.

Fact: The mix could not have from changed from 41/39 at 12:22am to 43/37 with just 613 additional respondents. Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% (52.6 million) of the 122.3 million votes recorded in 2004 since he only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore, there were at most 48.0 million returning Bush voters in 2004 – assuming an impossible 100% turnout. If 98% turned out, there were 47.0 million returning Bush voters. That means there had to be 5.6 million (52.6 less 47.0) phantom voters.

23- Myth: The Democratic Underground “Game” thread showed a scenario that Bush could have won with a feasible and plausible 39/39% returning Bush/Gore mix.
Fact: In order to force a match to the recorded vote, the NEP vote shares had to be adjusted to implausible levels far beyond the margin of error. The scenario required a) Kerry’s share of new voters reduced from 57% to 52.9%, b) Bush’s share of Gore voters increased from 8% to 14.6% and c) Bush 2000 returning voter defection rate reduced from 10% to 7.2%.

24- Myth: The near-zero a correlation between vote swing (from 2000 to 2004) and 2004 exit poll red-shift “kills the fraud argument”.
Fact: “Swing vs. Red-shift” is based on an invalid premise and twisted logic. It uses 2000 and 2004 recorded votes to prove there was no fraud in 2004. But the votes were obviously fraudulent (there were 6 million uncounted votes in 2000 and 4 million in 2004). There is a strong correlation between vote swing and red-shift when unadjusted state exit polls are used as proxies for the True Vote.

25- Myth: “False Recall” on the part of Gore voters is an explanation the Final NEP 43/37 Bush/Gore returning voter mix.
Fact: The 43/37 argument is hereby put to eternal rest. This closes the book on “False Recall”. Of the total 13660 NEP respondents, 7064 (51.7%) voted for Kerry and 6414 (47.0%) for Bush. Only 3182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1257 (39.5%) said Bush, 1221 (38.4%) said Gore. Using the 39.5/38.4% mix and 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry wins by 51.8-46.8%, exactly matching the unadjusted NEP, putting the lie to the published Final NEP (Bush 50.7-48.3%). The Final was derived by forcing a match based on a fictitious 43/37 returning Bush/Gore mix. The unadjusted 13660 sample had to be “adjusted” to have the Final NEP match the fraudulent recorded share. Bottom line: The rationale for the 43/37% returning voter mix is no longer debatable. It was clearly a forced result – not an actual sample.

26- Myth: An NES survey indicates that “a slow drifting fog” caused Gore voters to say they voted for Bush.
Fact: NES used 2000 and 2004 (105.4m and 122.3m) recorded votes as a baseline for the survey, rather than True Votes cast (110.8m and 125.7m). There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes in 2000, of which approximately 4.5 million were for Gore. Counting these votes, Gore won the True Vote by 2-3 million – not the 540,000 recorded. And Kerry won 3 of 4 million uncounted votes. Using votes cast as the baseline shows that NES respondents did not misstate their 2000 vote.

Fact: Only 3182 (23%) of 13660 of respondents were asked how they voted in 2000. All were asked who they voted for in 2004. Voters do not forget who they voted for in the previous election, much less how they just voted a few minutes earlier. False recall was obviously not a factor in the pre-election polls; they matched the exit polls after undecided voters were allocated. The unadjusted National Exit Poll data has been released, so we know that exactly 51.7% of the respondents voted for Kerry – and just 47.0% for Bush.

27- Myth: Returning Gore voters misrepresented their 2000 vote to the exit pollsters because they wanted to be associated with the winner: Bush.
Fact: Bush had a 48% approval rating on Election Day. The majority of new voters were Democrats and Independents who gave Bush 10-20% approval. Gore was the popular vote winner in 2000 – by at least 3 million True Votes. So why would Gore voters want to be associated with Bush? It makes no sense.

28- Myth: Bush gained 12 million new voters in 2004.
Fact: Simple arithmetic shows that Bush needed more than 16 million new voters. He had 50.5m recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m died and 1.0m did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, 47 million Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004. He needed 15 million (68%) of 22 million new voters to get his recorded 62 million. But according to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, he had just 9 million(41%) new voters – 7 million (27%) fewer than he needed. The probability that 68% of new voters voted for Bush is ZERO.

29- Myth: Bush won by a 3 million vote “mandate”.
Fact: Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes officially so Kerry had a head-start. According to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, Kerry had 57% of new (DNV) voters (first-timers and others who did not vote in 2000). He won returning Nader voters by 64-17% and 10% of Bush voters. Just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. So how could Bush have won? He needed a massive net defection of Gore voters. And Gore won by 3-6 million votes – not the 540,000 recorded. That makes it impossible for Bush to have won.

30- Myth: Sensitivity analysis showing that Kerry won all plausible scenarios is not a mathematical proof.
Fact: It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the WORST CASE (implausible) scenario indicates a Kerry win probability GREATER THAN 90% and the BASE CASE (plausible) scenario indicates a win probability GREATER THAN 99%.

31- Myth: Bush’s share of females (48%) increased by 4.2% over his 2000 share.
Fact: That’s implausible since his share of males declined by 0.2%. It is totally counter-intuitive to believe that females would defect to Bush and males would defect to Kerry. In the 12:22am NEP, females voted 54-45% for Kerry.

32- Myth: Bush won Ohio.
Fact: There is much documented evidence of uncounted and switched votes, besides massive voter disenfranchisement. Two election workers were convicted of rigging the recount. Fifty-six of 88 county voting records were destroyed. The final Zogby poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry led the unadjusted Ohio exit poll by 54.1-45.9%. He led the adjusted 12:40am Composite by 52.1-47.9%.

33- Myth: Bush won Florida by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin.
Fact: Democrats had a 41-37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (DRE) counties and a 42-39% advantage in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won DRE counties (3.9 million votes) by 51-47%. Bush won OS counties (3.4 million) by an implausible 57-42%. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry leading by 50-47%. Kerry won the exit poll by 50.9-48.3%. In 2000, Gore had 70% of 180,000 uncounted votes; he won the state by at least 50,000 votes. Dan Rather’s expose on voting machines proved that the poor-quality paper used in the punch card machines was a major cause of ballot spoilage in heavily Democratic precincts.

34- Myth: NY pre-election and final exit polls (Kerry 58.5-40.2%) were correct. The unadjusted exit poll Kerry (64.1-34.4%) was wrong.
Fact: New York and California were rigged to inflate Bush’s popular vote margin and provided 2.0 million of his 3.0 million vote “mandate”.

NY voted 60.5% for Gore, 35.4% for Bush and 4.1% for Nader. This is just one example of the impossible scenarios required to match the the 2004 NY vote: a) 100% of returning Nader voters had to break for Bush (he had 17% nationally), b) Bush needed 50% of new voters (he had 41% nationally), c) Bush needed 11% of returning Gore voters (he had 8% nationally).

The clincher: Kerry’s NY share was 10% higher than his national share. How could Bush have done so much better in heavily Democratic NY with returning Gore, Nader and new voters than he did nationally? It is extremely counter-intuitive and makes no sense.

Pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not factor in the heavy turnout of new Kerry voters. The final pre-election NY LV poll had a 4% margin of error (MoE). There was a 95% probability that Kerry would be in the 54.5-62.5% range – and that is conservative because it is based on an LV poll.

The NY exit poll had a 3.2% MoE. Therefore, there was a 95% probability that Kerry’s vote was between 60.9-67.3% and was within the MoE of BOTH the LV pre-election poll (which low-balled Kerry turnout) and the unadjusted exit poll.

Bush supposedly did better in 2004 than his 2000 vote share in the 15 largest (Democratic) New York City and suburban counties. That is an Urban Legend – impossible on its face.

35- Myth: Unlike touchscreens and optical scanners, lever voting machines cannot be programmed to switch votes.
Fact: The NY exit poll discrepancy was 12% – far beyond the 3.2% margin of error. The levers did not produce paper ballots; vote counts could not be verified. Defective levers were placed in urban precincts; many voters left the precincts without voting. Lever advocates refuse to consider this fact: Votes CAST on levers were COUNTED on unverifiable central tabulators.

36- Myth: Polling data was cherry-picked and biased for Kerry.
Fact: The following models used exit poll data for 1250 precincts provided by Edison-Mitofsky and included partisan response rates and corresponding average within precinct discrepancies (WPE). The models produced equivalent results. They confirmed the USCV simulation which debunked the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis.
a) 1250 precinct response: Kerry won the 2-party vote:52.1-47.9%.
b) Location-size response: Kerry by 52.1-47.9%.
c) State exit poll response: Kerry by 52.3-47.7%.
d) Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents: Kerry by 51.7-47.0% (52.4-47.6% 2-party)
e) Unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents): Kerry by 51.1-47.5% (51.8-48.2% 2-party)

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 22, 2011 in 2004 Election, Election Myths

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Illinois 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Illinois 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 18, 2011

This is an analysis of the 2010 Illinois senate race in which Kirk (Rep) defeated Giannoulias (Dem) by 60,000 recorded votes (49.2-47.6%).

Giannoulias won the unadjusted exit poll by 51-47%, a 144,000 vote margin.
The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 49.7-47.1%, a 97,000 margin.

http://richardcharnin.com/IL2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The Final Illinois 2010 Exit Poll indicated that 56% of the votes recorded were cast by returning Obama voters and 38% by returning McCain voters.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The Final Exit Poll is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004, the impossible Bush 2000 voter 43% share of the mix was insufficient to match the recorded vote; the exit pollsters also had to increase Bush vote shares.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote.

Assume a) 61% turnout of Obama voters, b) 69% McCain turnout and c) an even spit between Gianoulias and Kirk among new and returning third-party voters. The True Vote Model indicates that if Giannoulias captured just 82% of returning Obama voters, he won by approximately 115,000 votes. With an 80% share of returning Obama voters, he won by 33,000 votes.

As in the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania senate exit polls, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the Illinois exit poll indicated that returning 2008 third-party voters and new voters each comprised 3% (108,000) of the vote. There were only 72,000 third-party voters in 2008. Approximately 48,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.3%. The DNV increased from to 4.1%.

The sensitivity analysis tables display Giannoulias’ vote share and margin for various scenarios: 1) Obama 2008 voter turnout in 2010 (61-69%), 2) Giannoulias’ shares of returning Obama voters and 3) Kirk shares of returning McCain voters.

Exit Poll Oddities

The Final 2010 Illinois Exit Poll is eerily similar to the Wisconsin amd Pennsylvania polls. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote in each election. Feingold in Wisconsin, Sestak in Pennsylvanua and Giannoulias in Illinois each won the “When Decided” category in the Final. But they lost in the other categories.

Giannoulias had a 54-37% lead among the 29% of voters who decided in the month before the election. He won the “When Decided” category by 49.4-46.1%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 44-31% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have an edge in Party-ID. Kirk needed an implausible 61% of Independents.

Giannoulias tied Kirk among the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters in the “How Voted in 2008” category,

At the same time, to believe the Illinois recorded vote, you must also believe that one out of five returning Obama voters defected to Kirk but only 1 out of 33 returning McCain voters defected to Giannoulias.

You must also believe that just 61% of Obama voters returned to vote while 70% of McCain voters did.

 

Pennsylvania 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Pennsylvania 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin

June 18, 2011

This is an analysis of the 2010 Pennsylvania senate race in which Toomey (Rep) defeated Sestak (Dem) by 80,000 recorded votes (51-49%). The True Vote analysis indicates that Sestak had at least a 51.5% vote share and 120,000 vote margin.

http://richardcharnin.com/PA2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The unadjusted exit poll (2664 respondents) was a 50/50 tie: Sestak had 1331; Toomey had 1333. The Final exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote: Sestak 49.1%; Toomey 50.9%.

The Final indicated that 49% of the votes recorded in 2010 were cast by returning Obama voters and 45% by returning McCain voters, a 4 percent margin. But Obama won the PA True Vote by 15%. Therefore it is logical to assume that there were many more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 PA exit poll. If this is the case, then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Sestak won the election.

Given Obama’s 57% PA True Vote and a) 60% returning Obama voter turnout, b) 70% McCain turnout, c) 2010 PA exit poll vote shares, Sestak won by 122,000 votes (51.5-48.5%).

As in the Wisconsin exit poll, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the exit poll indicated that returning third-party 2008 voters and new voters each represented 3% (119,000) of the total 2010 vote. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It is also impossible that returning third-party voters comprised 119,000 of the 2010 vote. There were only 81,000 third-party voters in 2008 and approximately 55,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.4%. New (DNV) voters increased from 3% to 5.2%.

The sensitivity analysis tables display Sestak vote shares and margins for various scenarios: Obama 2008 voter turnout in 2010, Sestak shares of returning Obama voters and Toomey shares of returning McCain voters.

The Final 2010 PA Exit Poll is eerily similar to that of Wisconsin. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote. Feingold and Sestak each won the “When Decided” category. Toomey needed 53% of the 27% of voters who decided in the last week. He had just 42%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 40-37% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have a 3% edge in Party-ID.

In the “Voted in 2008” category, Sestak led the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters. Vote shares for returning 3rd-party and new voters are not available.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure.

In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote. The Final is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004 adjusting the mix was not sufficient to match the recorded vote, so the exit pollsters had to increase Bush vote shares as well.

 

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 16, 2011

This is a True Vote analysis of the 2010 Wisconsin senate race. The Final 2010 Wisconsin Senate Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%). Forcing a match to the recorded vote is standard operating procedure on the part of the exit pollsters. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election.

http://richardcharnin.com/WI2010SenateTrueVote.htm

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote, In 2010, the Final WI senate exit poll was again forced to match the recorded vote. In the Final, the exit pollsters indicate that 49% of the 2010 recorded vote were cast by returning Obama voters and 43% by returning McCain voters. The 49/43 ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% recorded vote margin. But the 2008 True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won by 57-41% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded).

It is logical to assume that there were more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 WI exit poll. Therefore, the returning Obama/McCain share (mix) of the 2010 vote was changed from 49/43% to 52/40%. If this was indeed the case, then election fraud may very well have cost Feingold the election. The True Vote analysis indicates that Feingold had an approximate 50.6% vote share and 50,000 vote margin.

Vote shares were not provided for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters in the WI Exit Poll. These categories represented 3% and 5% of the total 2010 recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the recorded vote, Johnson must have won these voters by approximately 61-35% and 64-36%, respectively. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It strains credulity that returning third party voters would switch from Obama to Johnson in those amounts.

Note the SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS which displays vote shares for various returning voter mix assumptions (scenarios) and Feingold’s share of returning McCain voters. Although the Final Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, the Base Case True Vote scenario assumes the Final Exit Poll vote shares; only the returning voter mix was adjusted. However, it is likely that the vote shares were also adjusted to force the match.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes equal 70% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters.and a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters and there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was a clear winner assuming that the percentage turnout of returning Obama voters was equal or greater than that of McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. This is extremely implausible. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

A comparison of the exit poll demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields some interesting results:

When Decided: Feingold was the winner in this category.
1) Feingold led the 83% of voters who decided a week prior to the election by 51-48%, winning by 50.7-48.5%.
2) He led the 68% of voters who decided a month prior by 51-48%, winning by 50.4-49.0%.
3) He led the 69% of voters who decided a month prior to the election by 51-48%. Vote shares for the last week were not available. Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the last week (17% of the total) to match his recorded share.

Gender: In 2004, females comprised 53% of total voters; in 2010, they were just 50%.
Age: Voters over 45 comprised 50% of the electorate in 2004 and 62% in 2010.

Party ID: In 2004, Democrats were 35% and GOP 38%. In 2010, Democrats were 37%, the GOP 36%.

Region: Milwaukee Cty had 16% of voters in 2004 and 2010. Feingold had 68% in 2004;61% in 2010.
Southeast (incl Waukesha):19% of voters in 2004;27% in 2010. Feingold: 39% in 2004; 34% in 2010.

Assuming that Feingold had just 88% of returning Obama voters (65% turnout) and Johnson had 93% of returning McCain voters (75% turnout), Feingold was still a 50.0-48.8% winner with a 26,000 vote margin.

I have included a comparable Oregon analysis. Oregon Senator Wyden, a popular progressive Democrat like Feingold, was re-elected with a 57% share, closely matching Obama’s 56.8% OR share.

 

Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections?

Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections?

Richard Charnin

June 8, 2011
Updated: June 12, 2014

Posters who claim that technology can never guarantee that our elections will be honest are missing the overall by focusing on only one factor in the equation. They claim that any system can be hacked (which is true) – but they leave it at that. They fail to consider that technology, used in conjunction with low-tech hand-counts, provides a more secure voting system than hand-counts alone.

Current voting systems are designed to be hacked. We need systems that are designed to work. It’s that simple. Data redundancy, auditable processes, open source code, non-proprietary systems, expert design (not r/w hacks), voters can confirm their own vote. What’s wrong with that? Let experts check the code and agree that it would work. As expert Steve Spoonamore has said: you just need to make sure that 1+1=2. It’s not rocket science. If voters have the ability to check their vote after it has been transmitted to a tabulator and find a mistake, they can report it. It is a citizen auditable process. It’s just common sense.

We are the voters. We own the hardware. We own the software. We check our votes. This way we have the best of both worlds: A HYBRID system of hand-counted ballot summaries posted for viewing at the precinct as well as on the Internet. Each ballot contains an anonymous voter code. Privacy is not an issue; the voters can check their votes online. It is a self-auditing system. The key is data redundancy and transparency– and that is why an Open Source/Internet system can provide a solution. The Diebold and ES&S voting machines and central tabulators use proprietary code for one reason: they are designed to be manipulated. Non-proprietary hardware and Open Source software is the solution, not the current systems from right-wing corporations that steal elections while Congress looks the other way.

Steve Spoonamore is allowed to analyze Diebold ATM software, but prohibited from looking at Diebold’s voting machine code. Spoonamore says that each voter should be allowed to check their vote electronically on the County Web site. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. He agrees with my contention that Open Source is a must. He calls it “freeware”. Same thing.

Spoonamore says that the software should be made available for free. What he doesn’t say is that there would be an additional benefit: there could be no bribing of election officials to install unverifiable machines that have consistently failed inspection procedures.
http://richardcharnin.com/TransparentVotingSystem.htm

Listen to the Spoonamore interview here (parts 7 and 8):

The solution is simple, so simple that it has never been and will never be proposed by corrupt politicians and election officials. The use of current closed systems by election officials and their refusal to consider an Open Source solution is itself proof that it would work. Virtually all voters would have online access to their vote. And many would check to see that it was correct. They would in effect be auditing and exit polling themselves.

This excellent Institutional Investor article discusses problems with voting machines and mentions my work in the analysis of Election Fraud http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/2930308/Technology-Isnt-the-Solution-to-Preventing-Election-Fraud.html#.U5w7CZRX-uZ

To the skeptics: True Vote count = hand-vote count at the voting site (they neglect to mention the need to tabulate ALL the other precincts)

To the technologists: True Vote count = hand-vote count (posted at the voting site) + voter-verified tabulation on the Internet of ALL precincts

The skeptics offer no solution, just the mantra that our best technology is incapable of insuring fair elections and that every system can be hacked. They fail to consider the primary goal of any security system: data redundancy and built-in safeguards to detect fraud. The skeptics speak with a tone of final authority – in sound bytes. But how do they know a nearly foolproof system cannot be developed? There are a lot of computer experts who are smarter than any posters here who want FAIR elections (like Steven Spoonamore). Why not let them create a prototype? Refusal to even consider that a technical solution could enhance hand-counting ballots only serves to enable the corruption. But what if the experts can provide such a hybrid solution? Would they accept it?

Why do the skeptics display the arrogance of supreme authority? Why do they continue to pontificate their version of the Ultimate Truth? Who are they to say that TECHNOLOGY would never work; that corrupt election officials can never be outsmarted by experts in computer security and software design; that non-proprietary, robust hardware/software based election systems would never work? How do they know that? What is their motive in promoting the myth that technology could never work?

The fault lies not in our technology, but in our FAILURE to apply it to solve THE problem.

One skeptic claimed that those who believed that technology would work “refuse to see that transparency, simplicity, comprehension and control of the electoral process by the citizen-voters is essential to their opponents’ view of what is required for democratic process, and that no technologically sophisticated “solution” can satisfy those requirements”.

He has it exactly backwards. An Open Source system is the only one which provides full transparency that voters can have confidence in because they would own the machines and the software and could verify that their votes (and those of others) have been counted correctly.

I don’t pretend to be at all qualified to provide the actual solution. I have merely suggested that communication security experts and professional (even amateur) software developers can collaborate in writing one.

The poster adds that voting systems are unlike other “systems under the operational control of the institutions that maintains a stake in those systems operating properly for the benefit of those institutions, and that the electoral process by its nature is one of divided interests. (Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.)”

He misses the essential point that the problem lies not in technology, but in those who have the power to use it and fail to do so. I have said that a voting system could be designed such that the probability would be extremely low that corrupt election officials and hackers would succeed in miscounting the votes.

Election officials have zero knowledge of technology. They are not even good at hiding their transparent efforts in Wisconsin of stuffing ballot bags or stacking 50 ballots in a row for the Republican in a city that voted 75% for his opponent. A robust, transparent, data redundant system would never allow these amateurish anomalies. In the highly unlikely event that a hacker was able to break into the Internet database, it would be obvious: the totals would not match the precinct-posted hard copy and the voters own copy.

The skeptic goes on to say:
“I’m sure that I could design a electronic voting system that is guaranteed to work properly if I could continue to control all the actors and all the checks and balances along the way — and if I stayed honest — but so what? Why should voters want or need such a system?”

“There is no reason for voters to trust me, and even if they did the system (not their method for “checking” how their vote was counter) would remain opaque to them, and there would be no trace of collective participatory democracy in the vote counting process, which like the so-called negativists I consider important, if not essential, to the process”.

Even if he could design such a system, why would he want to do it all by himself? Why not collaborate with other experts who could check his design? Would he be willing to test a prototype? Even if it is “opaque” to voters as he calls it, the only relevant question is: would it solve the problem? That is all that matters. Does he really believe that voters care to know the details of how the system is designed? Do they have a clue as to how their financial transactions are processed?

Of course there is no reason to trust him; that’s why he would have to work with a team of professionals in designing the system. There is no reason for voters to trust him if others cannot revue his code to make sure that 1+1 is always equal to 2 and that there is never a reduction in the vote count.

He states that there would be no trace of collective participation in the vote-counting process – and in so doing contradicts himself. Voters would participate by checking to make sure that votes posted on the wall of their precinct match the votes uploaded to the Internet. There is no way that they can do that using current voting systems. But they could if they had a copy of their ballot and were able to check that it was properly recorded on the Net. That is quite an improvement over the current “system”.

Another skeptic asked:
“And exactly how would this stop ballot box stuffing? Ghost voters do NOT check their ballots on the internet. Counting the hard copy ballots at the precinct that the voters marked. Counting the night of the election while ballots are still in full view and custody of numerous observers — that isn’t simple? Guess not”.

Voters would be assigned sequential IDs on the ballots that would be recorded in poll books. A summary of votes cast would be posted periodically on the precinct wall by Voter ID. The number of entries in the poll book would have to match the posted summary. The corresponding ballot records would be uploaded to the Internet – where they are also sorted by Voter ID. The number of ballot data records in the Internet precinct database would have to match the posted summary at the precinct.

The poster forgets that total votes cast must be tabulated for each precinct in each county. Who would do the tabulation? Would it be done by hand calculator or abacus or computer? How would voters know that their vote and those of other voters in all other precincts would be tabulated correctly? Where would they go to check their vote other than on the precinct wall? There is just one feasible location where they could check that their vote was tabulated correctly: on the Internet. Can the poster provide an alternative? Or would he just trust that the thousands of hand-counted locations were tabulated correctly – and that there was a perfect chain-of-custody?

Consider Wisconsin: Election results were not posted in full public view. How, when and by whom were the DRE poll tapes generated? Who wrote the proprietary software? Who manufactured the voting machines? We already know that Why were the ballots kept in sealed bags in Kathy Nickolaus’ office? Why was she allowed to use software that differed from those used in other counties? Could anyone else view the code? Could she have hacked an Open Source system developed by professionals to run on non-proprietary hardware? I doubt it. Could she have changed the hard copy results posted on the wall of each voting location if it was guarded by several independent monitors? Not likely. But even if she were able to bribe the monitors, could she have a) sneaked into the home of each voter whose vote she changed on the hard copy posted at the precinct, b) search the house and find the voter’s ballot copy, c) forge the voter’s copy so it would match the corresponding copy posted at the voting location, d) hacked the uploaded posted summaries on the Internet, and e) install a virus on each voter’s computer to prevent them from logging on to the Internet to check their vote and voting location total?

Only if she were able to clone herself into thousands of Superwomen. But miracles do happen. After all, they found 50 consecutive ballots for Prosser in Verona, a town that voted 75% for Kloppenburg. The probability of that anomaly occurring in an Open Source Voting system: ONE in a trillion trillion.

Election Transparency Project
The Humboldt (CA) County Election Transparency Project (ETP) is a documented case in which technology uncovered vote miscounts. Volunteers scanned ballots after the election to verify the integrity of the Diebold/Premier machines. The images were made publicly available and used TEVs ballot counting software
http://code.google.com/p/tevs/

They found that 197 ballots were deleted by the Diebold/Premier GEMS software used by Humboldt County to tally the vote. This software glitch resulted in the certification of inaccurate election results. The Election Administration Research Center at UC Berkeley site contains ballot images that were scanned during this project (the same images can also be obtained on DVD from the Elections Office).The ballot extraction code reads the ballot image and uses OCR to automatically determine the candidates listed on the ballot. It reads the images and stores the results in a database.

The ETP is overseen by officials from the Humboldt County Elections Office. However, the “elbow grease” of this project, with a couple of exceptions, is done by volunteers who care about the integrity of our elections. These volunteers, working on weekends, holidays, and evenings, use a high-end office scanner to scan all paper ballots cast in an election. The scanner produces digital images of the ballots. The ballots are “digitally signed” to mark their authenticity and uploaded to the Internet for distribution. These images are also available on DVD at the Elections Office. One notable feature is that each ballot is imprinted with a unique serial number before it is imaged. Part of the serial number contains information about on the box the ballot comes from. This feature “ties together” an image on the Internet with the paper ballot.

A site belonging to ETP volunteer Mitch Trachtenberg contains an Open Source software program that automates the counting of these ballot images. This auditing tool is quite valuable in producing a tally that can be used to compare against the results produced by software that is not subject to inspection by members of the general public. In short, this tool alleviates the need of counting ballots by hand and does so in a transparent manner.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 8, 2011 in Uncategorized

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 761 other followers