Monthly Archives: November 2011

Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

Media Avoidance of the Election Fraud Factor: the New Hampshire Primary

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Nov. 28, 2011

The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.

Nate Silver just posted: “Newspaper’s Endorsement Has Been Leading Indicator in New Hampshire”.

The article deserves some commentary as it illustrates how the media avoids the issue of election fraud.

Nate wrote: “The endorsement represents one of the most tangible signs of parts of the conservative establishment coming around to Mr. Gingrich, who to date has received very few endorsements from Republican elected officials. It also represents a blow to Mitt Romney, who had led all polls of the state. But does the endorsement tell us anything about how New Hampshire Republicans are likely to vote? Or is it just fodder for a slow news day?”

But even the results of the NH primary will not tell us how people actually voted. Nate never considers the history of New Hampshire Primary Election Fraud in his model.

Silver compares how the Republican candidate endorsed by The Union Leader finished in each of the past six competitive New Hampshire primaries to polling numbers at the time of the endorsement. He finds that “although only three of the six Republicans endorsed by The Union Leader during this period won their primary, all six outperformed their polling”. He notes that that “on average candidates have some tendency to improve in the actual voting from their poll standing because the polls include undecided voters, whereas everyone who actually votes will have to choose a candidate”.

That is very true. Undecided voters do finally decide when they vote. We already know that.

Nate wanted to “check whether the results could be attributable to random noise”. So he ran a “simple regression analysis that explains a candidate’s share of the vote in New Hampshire as a function of whether or not he was endorsed by The Union Leader and his polling average at the time.”

Like all election forecasters in the mainstream media, Nate uses the recorded vote share in his model. He does not consider the Election Fraud Variable Factor. He ignores this basic identity:
Recorded Vote = True Vote + Election Fraud Factor.

Nate has an accounting degree, so he is surely aware of the analogous accounting identity:
Total Assets = Equity + Liabilities

Nate determined that “The Union Leader’s endorsement has been highly statistically significant in helping to explain the voting results. Consistent with the simpler averaging method that we used before, it pegs the endorsement as having roughly an 11-percentage-point impact”. But Nate cautions: “Nevertheless, there are a couple of very important cautions as to its broader significance. First, it does not necessarily imply causation. It is unlikely that a candidate wins as much as an additional 11 percent of the vote simply because The Union Leader endorses him. Instead, it may be more of a leading indicator for how actual New Hampshire voters will think about the candidates once they finish sorting through them. That is, it replicates in some way the thinking process that some segment of New Hampshire voters will go through, whether or not they pay any attention to The Union Leader itself. More broadly, the endorsement may serve as a proxy for various sorts of intangible qualities that may help a candidate to perform strongly in New Hampshire but that are not necessarily reflected in the early polls of the state”.

How voters will think after sorting through them? Thinking process of the voters? Intangible qualities? He needs to KISS and state that voters have not made up their minds. But even when they do, will it matter when the NH Election Fraud machine goes to work? What Nate should do is run a sensitivity analysis based on various undecided voter scenarios. Now that would be useful.

“Second, this finding is drawn from only six historical elections. As I often remind our readers, a regression analysis on historical data is not really the same thing as a prediction of how these factors will play out in the future. Fairly often, a relationship that is found to be highly statistically significant in past data will prove to be unreliable when applied out-of-sample”.

That is just a fancy way of saying that past performance does not guarantee future results. It’s like the standard caveat in a stock-picking or sport-betting system. What is the purpose of a regression analysis if not as a guide to predict the future? Why bother to do it in the first place? Silver ranks pollsters based on past “performance” in projecting a bogus recorded vote using Likely Voter (LV) polls. And the most biased pollsters are at the top of his rankings. The best, Zogby, is at the bottom.

Nate concludes: “Nevertheless, this is a pretty good sign for Mr. Gingrich. If you do take the results of the regression analysis to be tantamount to a prediction, they imply that New Hampshire could be quite close, with Mr. Romney finishing with 36 percent of the vote and Mr. Gingrich at 30 percent. What I think is fair to say is that Mr. Gingrich would at least have a shot at winning New Hampshire if he also wins Iowa, a result that could be devastating to Mr. Romney’s campaign”.

Yes, the primary could be quite close. Or maybe it won’t be close. We already know that. But why is it that Nate never mentions New Hampshire’s not-so-glorious history of Election Fraud?

Let’s take a look at some historical facts regarding the New Hampshire Primary.


Clinton was expected to win the Iowa caucuses but lost to Obama and Edwards. If Clinton lost in New Hampshire, she would have been out of the running. The 20 final pre-election polls had Obama winning by an average of 8% over Clinton. The early exit polls also had Obama winning by 8%. As in 2004 and 2006, the average of the final pre-election polls matched the unadjusted exit polls.

But Hillary won NH in a major upset. Obama won the hand-counted precincts by 5.90% but lost the machine-counts by the same margin -and there were many more votes counted by machine.

There were the usual tortured explanations from the mainstream media explaining why the polls were “wrong”. But Election Fraud was not one of them. The Final Exit poll was forced to match an implausible vote count. Of course, an uninformed public believes whatever the media tells them. There were the usual rationalizations to explain the astounding pre-election and exit poll discrepancies. The media mantra was that Clinton’s emotional plea on the evening before the election gave her the late undecided and sympathetic voters (mostly women).

Date Pollster Sample Mix MoE BO HRC JE

106 Str Vision 600 9.7% 4.0% 38 29 19
106 USA/Gallup 778 12.6% 3.5% 41 28 19
106 CBS News 323 5.2% 5.5% 35 28 19
106 Marist 636 10.3% 3.9% 36 28 22

106 CNN 599 9.7% 4.0% 39 30 16
107 Rasmussen 774 28.7% 2.3% 37 30 19
107 Zogby 862 14.0% 3.3% 42 29 17
107 ARG 600 9.7% 4.0% 40 31 20

Total 6172 100% 1.25% 38.6 29.3 18.8
Recorded 36.9 39.5 17.1

Optical Scan
Clinton 91,717 52.9507%
Obama 81,495 47.0493%
Total 173,212 79.60%

Hand Count
Clinton 20,889 47.0494%
Obama 23,509 52.9506%
Total 44,398 20.40%

Given that Obama won 52.9506% of the hand-counted votes, what was the probability that Clinton would win 52.9506% of the optical scan votes? These are real votes, not samples, so we can derive an estimate of the probability of voting machine fraud without considering a statistical margin of error. We KNOW exactly WHAT happened. We don’t know WHY or HOW. But we can calculate a fair estimate of the probability that the result was just a coincidence or due to the miscounting of votes. One might be tempted to say that the probability is 1 in 173,212 since there were exactly 173,212 joint optical scan ballots. But that would be unrealistic.

We need to consider a plausible range of outcomes. Let’s assume that Clinton could expect somewhere between 45%-55% of the 173,212 votes. That is a plausible 10% range of 17,321 possible outcomes, from 77,945 to 95,267. Given the range of 17,321 possible outcomes, what was the probability HRC would get exactly 91,717 votes due to chance alone? The approximate probability that it was just a coincidence is 1 in 17,321.

Now we will try a different approach: calculate the probability based on the exit poll discrepancy. Given that Obama led the poll at 8pm by 39-36%, what was the probability that HRC would win the official vote by at least 3% (39-36%)? Assume that the exit poll margin of error was 1.5%. The Excel normal distribution function calculates the probability that the discrepancy was due to chance: Probability = normdist (.39, .36, .015/1.96, true) = 0.0044% or 1 in 22,577.

Was it the voting machines? This is from Bradblog:
Brad wrote:
“I’m not sure why Obama would have conceded so soon, given the virtually inexplicable turn of events in New Hampshire tonight. What’s going on here? Before proceeding, I recommend you read the third section of the post I just ran an hour or so ago, concerning the way the ballots are counted in New Hampshire, largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a very very bad company named LHS Associates.. Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. See the previous report, as I recommend, which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates”.

2008 Republican Primary

Ron Paul had 15% of the Hand-counted precincts. This would have placed him in 3rd place, just as the pre-election polls indicated. Not a single hand count township showed less than 10%. Supposedly, Ron Paul got 8% – this does not make sense. Why such a variation from the machine counts?

Was it because of the the Chain of Custody Scam?


2004 Democratic Primary

Lynn Landes is the publisher of The Landes Report and a freelance journalist who writes about politics, health, and the environment. She’s one of the nation’s leading researchers and analysts on voting integrity issues.

Lynn writes:
“Consider New Hampshire’s much ballyhooed recount system, where election officials claim that they almost never find any problem with the voting machines. But they wouldn’t, would they? After all, their recount system is after the fact, after the polls have closed and ballots have been transported to a central facility. It’s a system that allows plenty of time to substitute real ballots with fraudulent ones. It’s also interesting to note that New Hampshire does not conduct election day audits at the polls, as a rule. Now that’s something that stands a chance of discovering fraud or errors.

And, consider New Hampshire’s own history of producing questionable election results. Remember Howard Dean? In a 2004 article, Questions Mount Over New Hampshire’s Primary, I wrote, “Martin Bento published online an interesting analysis of New Hampshire’s election results based on the voting systems used. It’s been getting a lot of attention.” According to Bento’s analysis of state data, Howard Dean’s loss to John Kerry had a disturbing correlation to how votes were counted. Below are the percentages by which Kerry’s vote exceeded Dean’s, grouped by tallying method”.

VotingTechUsed Margin of Victory of Kerry over Dean
Diebold 58.1%
ES&S 35.0%
Hand 4.7%


Lynn also discusses the 1988 Republican Primary:

“But, suspicion of vote fraud in New Hampshire’s presidential primary goes back further. In George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, they wrote, “When Bush had arrived in Manchester the night of the disastrous Iowa result, Sununu had promised a nine point victory for Bush in his state. Oddly enough, that turned out to be exactly right. The final result was 38% for Bush, 29% for Dole, 13% for Kemp, 10% for DuPont, and 9% for Robertson. Was Sununu a clairvoyant? Perhaps he was, but those familiar with the inner workings of the New Hampshire quadrennials are aware of a very formidable ballot-box stuffing potential assembled there by the blueblood political establishment. Some observers pointed to pervasive vote fraud in the 1988 New Hampshire primaries, and Pat Robertson, as we shall see, also raised this possibility. The Sununu machine delivered exactly as promised, securing the governor the post of White House chief of staff. Sununu soon became so self-importantly inebriated with the trappings of the imperial presidency as reflected in his travel habits that it was suggested that the state motto appearing on New Hampshire license plates be changed from “Live Free or Die” to “Fly Free or Die.” In any case, for Bush the heartfelt “Thank You, New Hampshire” he intoned after his surprising victory signaled that his machine had weathered its worst crisis.

1 Comment

Posted by on November 28, 2011 in Media


Tags: , , ,

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Richard Charnin
Updated: August 26, 2013

It is about time that the so-called experts who promote overly complex or overly simplistic pre and post election models started to apply the scientific method. They need to do a robust probability and statistical analysis, including the election fraud factor in historical regression factor analyses and polling models.

Election forecasters and political scientists implicitly assume that the recorded vote is equal to the True Vote; they never consider Systemic Election Fraud. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote. The proof is simple and self-explanatory. According to the US Census, there were 80 million more votes cast then recorded in the 1968-2008 presidential elections. The uncounted votes were a combination of spoiled, provisional and absentee ballots. And the vast majority (70-80%) of them were, not surprisingly, Democratic. Therefore, the recorded vote has never represented the will of the electorate. And the historical election data that is accepted as conventional wisdom is based on uncounted and miscounted votes.

Media pundits and political scientists never question the unscientific and faith-based practice of forcing the exit polls to match the recorded votes. Even when the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

Historical evidence indicates Democratic since 1988, presidential vote shares are always reduced by 3-5%. The Democrats won the average unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a massive 52-42% margin, but the recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The True Vote Model confirms the exit polls. The TVM indicates that they won by 53-41%. There were comparable deviations in senate, congressional and gubernatorial elections.

Unadjusted exit poll and recorded vote data is provided in 1988-2008 State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls. The data source is the Roper UConn Center site.

Prior to 2004 the exit poll discrepancies were primarily due to uncounted ballots in heavily Democratic districts. But the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) resulted in the installation of thousands of unverifiable, proprietary voting machines vulnerable to computer hacking and malicious coding.

It is often stated that exit polls were accurate in elections prior to 2004 and have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. But it misleading to compare FINAL exit polls prior to 2004 to UNADJUSTED exit polls since. State and national exit polls published in the media are ALWAYS ADJUSTED to match the RECORDED vote. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

RECORDED votes have deviated sharply from the UNADJUSTED exit polls (and the TRUE VOTE) in EVERY election since 1968. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in each of the 1988-2008 elections. The reason FINAL state and national exit poll exactly matched the RECORDED vote was because they were FORCED to do so. It’s standard policy. But the recorded vote has NEVER reflected true voter intent due to documented UNCOUNTED and STUFFED ballots and MALICIOUSLY programmed electronic voting machines.

This is how the 2004 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. Kerry won the state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5% (3.6% margin). The 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) is a subset of the state polls. The unadjusted NEP showed that Kerry won by a 4.8% margin. But the NEP was adjusted to match the recorded vote with nearly 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004. Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died, so at most there were 48 million returning Bush voters. But not all returned to vote.

Assuming 98% of living Bush 2000 voters turned out in 2004, then there were 47 million returning Bush voters or 38.4% of the 122.3 million who voted. But according to the adjusted NEP, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters (43% of the voters). There is a major disconnect here; we have just shown that there were approximately 47 million.

So where did the 5.6 (52.6-47) million Bush voters come from? The bottom line: In order to adjust the National Exit Poll to conform to the recorded vote, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. Therefore since the adjusted exit poll was impossible, so was the recorded vote.

13660.. Kerry Bush...Other
Sample 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%

UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 23,116 18.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125,737 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46%
Votes 125,737 100% 65,070 58,829 1,838

2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 22,381 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52,055 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47,403 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3,898 3.10% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125,737 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36%
Votes 125,737 100% 67,362 56,666 1,709

ADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares)
(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout

DNV. 20,790 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - -
Gore 45,249 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93%
Bush 52,586 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110% impossible 2000 voters
Other 3,669 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Share 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%
Votes 122,294 100% 59,031 62,040 1,223

Let’s now consider how two National Exit Poll categories were adjusted to match the recorded vote.
1) Bush Approval – Eleven (11) final national pre-election polls gave Bush a 48% approval rating. The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) indicated 50.3% approved. But in the adjusted Final National Exit Poll, Bush approval was increased to 53% to force a match to the recorded vote.

2) Party-ID – The unadjusted state exit polls indicated a 38.8-35.1-26.1% Dem/Rep/Ind split. But the final National Exit Poll changed it to to 37-37-26%. What was the rationale? In 2000, it was 39-35-26%. But the vast majority of new 2004 voters were Democrats. The 37-37 split was not plausible; it was an artificial fudge to force a match to the recorded vote.

This graph shows a near-perfect correlation between Bush’s 2004 unadjusted state exit poll vote shares, approval ratings and Party-ID:
2004 Correlation Analysis

The Ultimate Smoking Gun

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 135 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error. The probability is ZERO. The largest discrepancies occurred in 2008 (the MoE was exceeded in 37 states). Of the 135 exit polls that exceeded the MoE, 131 shifted to the Republican. The probability that this was a random occurrence is ZERO. The red shift from the exit polls to the vote has been in ONE direction and is proof beyond any doubt of systemic election fraud.

The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model (TVM)

The TVM allows one to run scenarios over a range of assumptions of prior election voter turnout in the current election and incremental changes in current election (NEP) vote shares:
1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model

Pre-election Polls

The experts and pundits claim that likely voter (LV) pre-election polls have been very accurate in matching the recorded vote. But they don’t tell you that votes are miscounted in every election. Or that their predictions failed to include the majority of newly registered Democratic voters who did not pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) screen.

They also claim that registered voter polls (RV) don’t reflect actual voter turnout. That is only partially true; not all registered voters turn out. But they don’t tell you that predictions based on RV polls (after allocating undecided voters) closely matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

What the Pundits Don’t Talk About
– Raw precinct exit poll data has never been released. Voter confidentiality is a non-issue.
– Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote even if the weightings are impossible.
– 19 states are no longer exit polled (beginning in 2012).
– Democrats won the unadjusted 1988-2008 exit polls by 52-42% – and the recorded vote by 48-46%
– 232 of 274 state presidential exit polls red-shifted to the GOP in 1988-2008
– 135 of 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error – only 14 would be expected.
– 131 of the 135 red-shifted to the GOP. Probability ZERO E-116
– Voting machines are rigged to switch votes with proprietary code.
– 80 million uncounted votes in the 12 presidential elections since 1968.
– 11 million uncounted votes in 1988 may have cost Dukakis the election.
– 6 million uncounted votes cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
– Unadjusted exit polls which show that the 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen
– 2004 NEP required 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive (110% turnout).
– Democratic landslides were denied in 2006, 2008, 2012.
– Obama had 61% in the 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll, but just 52.9% in the recorded vote.
– Obama had 58.0% in the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and 58.0% in the True Vote Model.
– In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48% on Election Day (117 million votes); he won 12 million late votes 58-38%.
– Senate and Governor races were likely stolen in 2010.
– No media discussion of massive documented evidence of Election Fraud,
– Pundits only discuss non-existent Voter Fraud.
– Likely Voter subsets of Registered Voter polls understate the Democratic vote.

But they talk about voter suppression as if it is the only problem that needs to be addressed.
Demographic trends based on bogus, adjusted NEP crosstabs which all understate the Democratic vote.

They claim that in the 2006 midterms, the Democrats won the House by 52-46% (230-205 seats). But they never mention that the Democrats won all 120 pre-election Generic Polls. The trend line predicted a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted National Exit Poll. Approximately 20 House seats were stolen (primarily in FL, OH, NM and IL). The landslide was denied.

They claim that the 2008 pre-election LV polls predicted Obama’s 52.9-45.6% recorded share – a 9.5 million vote margin. But they don’t tell you that RV polls projected that he would win by 57-41%. Or that he had a 58.0% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share – a 22 million vote margin. Or that he had a massive 61% in the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents).

They don’t mention that in order to match the recorded vote, the Final 2008 NEP required a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters – or 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Or that the Final indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – even though only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

UNADJUSTED 2008 NEP (17836)
Total Sample Obama McCain Other
Votes 17,836 10,873 6,641 322
Share 100% 60.96% 37.23% 1.81%

(exact match to TVM & unadjusted state exit polls)
Voted 2004 2008

2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV ...... 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry 50.2% 57.1 43.4% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 5.20% 5.90 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100.0% 58.0% 40.3% 1.7%
Votes 100% 131.5 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

(returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted 2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other

DNV ...... 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry 53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush. 45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other. 1.0% 1.20 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes 100% 131.5 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1

(forced to match recorded vote; impossible no. returning Bush voters)
Voted 2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other

DNV ..... 17.2 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry 42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush. 52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other. 4.6% 5.3 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100.0% 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%
Votes 100% 131.5 100% 69.5 59.9 2.0

They fail to question the 2010 midterms. The Democrats easily won the unadjusted Governor exit polls in Florida and Ohio – but lost the elections. Giannoulias won the Illinois Senate exit poll – and lost the election. Sestak lost in Pennsylvania after leading in the exit polls.

They never discuss the evidence which proves that Obama’s 2008 True Vote was reduced by a 5% fraud factor. Considering that the 1988-2008 average Democratic True Vote margin was reduced from 10% to 2% by election fraud, Obama needs 55% just to break even in 2012. He needs another landslide to overcome the fraud factor.

What the Pundits should be doing
– Use votes cast in their analysis (i.e. stipulate uncounted votes).
– Employ reasonable forecast assumptions using both RV and LV polls.
– Indicate that LV polls are a subset of RV polls.
– Note the Likely Voter Cutoff Model’s built-in bias against new voters.
– Allocate undecided and uncounted votes.
– Use voter mortality rates before estimating new and returning voter turnout.
– Use correlation analysis: exit polls, approval ratings, Party-ID.
– Question why exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.
– Question why the NEP indicates more returning voters than are living.

Historical Overview

- 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%. But Bush won by 7 million recorded votes. There were 11 million mostly Democratic uncounted 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. It implied 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%). His recorded margin was 8 million (49.2-40.8%). He had 53.6% in the TVM. 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. 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 vote 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 Bush Won Fairly You Must Believe…

- In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.3%, 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.

2004 Election Model Graphs

National Polling Trend

Electoral vote and win probability

Electoral and popular vote

Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability

National Poll Trend

Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram


Posted by on November 22, 2011 in Media


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000

Richard Charnin
Updated: June 13, 2014

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models

First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

View the spread sheet:1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential State Exit Polls vs. Recorded Votes. The data source is the Roper site.

Officially, Bush won Florida by 537 recorded votes. But it was not even close. Gore won the unadjusted Florida exit poll (1816 respondents) by 53.4-43.6%. Given the 3.0% exit poll margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect), there is a 97.5% probability that Gore won by at least 200,000 votes.

There were 185,000 uncounted ballots: 110,000 over-punched and 75,000 under-punched. In addition, thousands of “butterfly” ballots meant for Gore were marked for Buchanan in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. The recount was aborted in by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court. But Florida was not unique. The 9.8% margin discrepancy was exceeded in 10 states: TX AL NC TN GA AR ID MD SC FL

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

The True Vote Model is based on 1996 and 2000 votes cast. It was a close match to Gore’s exit poll share. He won the True Vote by 50.9-45.3% assuming he had 75% of 8 million returning 1996 voters whose ballots were uncounted and 75% of 6 million uncounted votes in 2000.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast: Here’s how to estimate the effect of spoilage on the election outcome. For fun, let’s take Florida 2000. We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots spoiled were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming “spoiled” ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

Note that Palast’s estimate of spoiled ballots does not include thousands of absentee, provisional or stuffed ballots. Or the unknown number of Gore votes dropped or switched to Bush in Cyberspace.

The 2000 election theft was a prologue of what was to come.

In 2004 Kerry won the unadjusted exit polls by 51.1-47.6% and the True Vote Model by 10 million votes with 53.6%. But he had just a 48.3% recorded share in losing by 3.0 million votes. It was a 13 million margin vote flip. The margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 15 states: VT DE AK CT SC VA NJ HI NH MS PA UT MN NM OH

In 2008 Obama won the unadjusted state exit polls by 58.0-40.3% with a 23 million vote margin – exactly matching the True Vote Model. the exit poll/vote margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 28 states. Obama had a 52.9% recorded share, officially winning by 9.5 million votes.

State and national exit poll discrepancies are calculated in two ways:

1) The exit pollsters provide the average Within Precinct Error (WPE) for each state. But that implies that the exit poll was in error, so let’s refer to it as Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPD). The WPD is the difference between the average exit poll precinct margin and the average precinct recorded vote margin.

2) The unadjusted exit poll discrepancy is the difference between the actual total exit poll respondent margin and the total recorded vote margin.

In 2004, according to the weighted aggregate of the state unadjusted exit polls, Kerry won nationally by 51.1-47.6%. His margin based on the average WPD was 52.0-47.0%.

Kerry won the NY recorded vote by 58.4-40.1%, an 18.3% margin. The exit pollsters indicated a 12.2% WPD, a 30.5% (64.5-34.0%) exit poll margin. In the unadjusted exit poll, Kerry had 901 (62.05%), Bush 525 (36.15%), Other 26 (1.80%) – a 25.9% unadjusted exit poll margin. There were 1452 respondents, a 3.2% margin of error.


Posted by on November 21, 2011 in 2000 Election, Election Myths


Tags: , , , , ,

1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.9-41.7% Average Democratic Margin

1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.9-41.7% Average Democratic Margin

Richard Charnin
Nov. 13, 2011
Updated: May 9, 2012

The 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database contains a wide selection of tables and graphs for presidential election analysis.

The data source is the Roper website.

Unadjusted exit poll data reflect actual samples. Vote shares have closely matched the corresponding True Vote Model, which calculates feasible estimates of returning and new voters. But exit poll demographics displayed in the mainstream media are always forced to match the recorded vote by “adjusting” the category crosstab weightings and/or vote shares. Adjusted “final” exit polls do not reflect actual voter response, but merely parrot the recorded (fraudulent) vote. The fraud factor is assumed to be zero in the final published polls.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

To force State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote, ALL demographic category weights and/or vote shares must be adjusted.

In 2000, Gore won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. But he won the recorded vote by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). There were six million uncounted votes, the vast majority (75-80%) for Gore. Uncounted ballots accounted for 3-4 million of the 5.5 million vote discrepancy. Vote switching and ballot stuffing may account for the remaining 1-2 million.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) indicated that Kerry won by 51.7-47.0%. Exit pollsters Edison/Mitofsky suggested the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis to explain the difference: there must have been 56 Kerry responders for every 50 Bush responders. There was no evidence to back it up.

Mitofsky used the same argument to explain the large 1992 exit poll discrepancies. Clinton had 43.0% recorded, a six million vote margin; he had 47.6% in the unadjusted exit poll and had a 16 million landslide. Mitofsky never mentioned the 1992 Vote Census which showed that there were 10 million more votes cast than recorded. Uncounted ballots accounted for half the 10 million discrepancy in margin.

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

The pollsters applied their unsupported hypothesis by forcing the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote. They indicated that 43% of 122.3 (52.6 million) of the 2004 electorate were returning Bush 2000 voters and 37% returning Gore voters. But 52.6 million was an impossible statistic; it implied a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died prior to the 2004 election and one million did not return to vote. Therefore, no more than 47 million Bush 2000 voters (38.4% of the 122.3 million) could have returned. There had to be 5.6 million PHANTOM BUSH VOTERS.

In fact, Kerry led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%.

Therefore, since the National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible number of returning Bush voters, the recorded vote must have been impossible. Simple mathematics proves election fraud.

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicated that Kerry had 53.6%. Why the difference between the TVM and the unadjusted state and national exit polls? The exit pollsters apparently designed their 2004 sample based on the bogus 2000 recorded vote which indicated that Gore won by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). On the other hand, the TVM uses a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election. Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5%; he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%.

In 2008 Obama led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61.0-37.2%. As usual, the NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%).

Why the discrepancy? The National Exit Poll was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by indicating that returning Bush and Kerry voters comprised 46% and 37%, respectively, of the electorate. The pollsters implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 6 million votes and the True Vote Model by 10 million.

The following examples illustrate how the exit pollsters rigged the Final 2004 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs to force them to match the recorded vote.

Bush Approval
The pollsters had to inflate Bush’s pre-election approval rating by a full 5% in order to force a match to the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. Bush had 50.3% approval in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate, but just 48% approval in 11 final pre-election polls. Therefore, the unadjusted exit polls may have understated Kerry’s True Vote by 2%. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to increase Bush approval to 53%, a full 5% over the 48% average of 11 pre-election polls. If Bush’s true approval was 48%, that means Kerry had 53.6% – matching the True Vote Model.

In order to force a match the recorded vote, the pollsters had to “adjust” the state exit poll Dem/Rep Party-ID split from 38.8/35.1% to 37/37% in the Final National Exit Poll.

There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation between Bush’s unadjusted state exit poll shares and approval ratings and a 0.93 correlation between his shares and Republican Party-ID.

This chart displays Bush’s unadjusted state exit polls, approval ratings and Republican Party-ID.

The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on Census votes cast, mortality, prior election voter turnout and National Exit Poll vote shares. The TVM closely matched the exit polls in each election. In 2008, it was within 0.1% of Obama’s 58.0% unadjusted exit poll share.

The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares measured by…
1) Recorded Vote: 48.08-45.96%
2) Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate:51.88-41.71% (370,000 respondents)
3) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.86-41.65 (85,000 respondents)
4) True Vote Model (methods 2-3): 51.6-42.9%
5) True Vote Model (method 4): 53.2-41.0%
6) State Exit Polls (WPE/IMS) method: 51.0-43.0%

The Democrats won the exit poll and lost the recorded vote in the following states:
1988: CA IL MD MI NM PA VT (Dukakis won the unadjusted Nat Exit Poll 50-49%)
2000: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE state to win)
2004: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)

These tables display the trend in unadjusted state and national exit polls, True Vote and recorded vote shares.

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
The discrepancies between the official recorded vote and unadjusted exit polls are in one direction only. This cannot be coincidental. The True Vote Model is confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – and vice versa.

There was a massive 8% discrepancy between the exit polls (52D-42R) and the recorded vote (48D-46R). The Probability P of the discrepancy is less than:
P = 8E-10 = 1- Normdist (.52, .48, .012/1.96, true)
P = 1 in 1.2 billion

Example: 274 state presidential exit polls (1988-2008)
A total of 232 polls shifted from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican. Only 42 shifted to the Democrat. Normally, as in coin-flipping, there should have been an equal shift.

The Binomial distribution function:

The probability that 232 of 274 would red-shift to the GOP: 9.11E-35 (less than 1 in a trillion trillion)
E-35 is scientific notation for 35 places to the right of the decimal point. For instance, E-3= .001 or 1/1000.

The Margin of Error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state exit polls. Only 14 would normally be expected.
Of the 135, 131 moved in favor of the Republicans, 4 to the Democrat.

The probability P that 131 out of 274 would red-shift beyond the margin of error is:
P = E-116 = Poisson (131, .025*274, false)
The probability is ZERO. There are 116 places to the right of the decimal.
P = .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001

The Poisson function is used for analyzing a series of events (like in queuing systems) in which each event has a very low probability of occurrence.

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:

The following table summarizes a) the number of state elections which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote, b) the number (n) of states in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican, c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE to the Republican, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the differential between the exit poll and recorded vote.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 21.. 12... E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may very well have won a close election.
1992 45.. 27... E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
1996 44.. 19... E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
2000 34.. 17... E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore won by 5-7 million True votes.
2004 42.. 23... E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry won a 10 million True vote landslide.
2008 46.. 37... E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama won a 23 million True vote kandslide.

Total 232-135 ; E-116.... 51.8 47.9 3.9

............Nat Exit....State Exit....Recorded...Red shift
Year..Votes. Dem.. Rep.. Dem.. Rep.. Dem.. Rep.. GOP >MoE ToGOP
Total....... 51.58 41.76 51.72 41.71 48.34 46.16 232 135 131

2008 132,310 60.96 37.23 58.06 40.29 52.87 45.60 46 37 36
2004 122,294 51.71 46.95 50.97 47.71 48.28 50.72 42 23 22
2000 105,417 48.51 46.27 50.75 44.76 48.38 47.87 34 17 16
1996 96,275. 52.20 37.50 52.64 37.06 49.18 40.82 44 19 18
1992 104,424 46.31 33.47 47.59 31.74 43.01 37.46 45 27 27
1988 91,595. 49.81 49.15 50.30 48.70 45.64 53.46 21 12 12


Tags: , , ,

Vote Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard

Swing vs. Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope, no election fraud” Canard

Richard Charnin
April 4, 2012

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models

After the 2004 election, exit poll naysayers claimed that the near-zero correlation between Swing (the change in Bush vote share from 2000 to 2004) and the 2004 Exit Poll Red shift “kills the fraud argument”.

The pollsters provided a swing vs. red-shift scatterchart of 1250 precincts. They pointed to the flat (zero slope) regression line as evidence that the election was not fraudulent and implied that a positively sloped regression would have indicated fraud. But they were wrong in using 2000 and 2004 recorded vote data as the baseline in calculating swing. If they had used the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls, it would have shown that the 2004 election was fraudulent – by their definition. The pollsters used bogus recorded vote data to prove there was no fraud in 2004 – a circular argument if there ever was one.

There were nearly six million uncounted votes in 2000 and four million in 2004. That fact alone is proof that the True Vote differred from the recorded vote in both elections.

Using recorded vote swing as the basis to “prove” that the 2004 election was fraud-free was misleading disinformation. It was meant to cast doubt on the state and national exit polls which indicated that Kerry had 51-52%.

However, if unadjusted 2000 and 2004 state exit polls are used as a proxy for the True Vote, there was a strong positive correlation. Swing is now defined as the CHANGE in the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll share from the PREVIOUS election. Red-shift is the DIFFERENCE between the 2-party unadjusted state exit poll and the recorded share in the CURRENT election.

In the 2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report, the pollsters “Zero slope = No fraud” argument was refuted their by their own data. The WPE (Within Precinct Error) correlation matrix showed a relatively high 0.48 correlation for 2000-2004. The correlation was a much lower .05 for 1996-2000.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

The E-M WPE correlations table below indicates that the 1988, 1992 and 2004 elections (Bush 1 and 2 were incumbents) were fraudulent. But unadjusted exit poll data shows that the 1996 and 2000 elections were fraudulent as well (Clinton did significantly better than his recorded margin). In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats led the average unadjusted exit polls by a solid 52-42%, but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy.

Edison-Mitofsky WPE Correlations
(2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report)
Year 2000 1996 1992 1988
2004 0.48 0.19 0.35 0.30
2000 …… 0.05 0.12 0.23
1996 ….. ……. 0.15 0.26
1992 …. ……. ……. 0.29

The analysis uses unadjusted 1988-2008 state exit polls. The average (bogus) recorded vote correlation was .01. The average unadjusted exit poll correlation was 0.47.

SwingCalc 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Recorded.. 0.09 0.06 0.20 -0.16 -0.14
Exit Poll…. 0.65 0.10 0.57 0.62 0.38

Swing and red shift calculations are shown in these tables and graphs:

The exit pollster’s initial explanation for the discrepancies was that non-response bias skewed the exit polls – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr). When that argument was refuted, they tried “Swing vs. Red shift”. Finally, “False Recall” was promoted to explain the impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters implied by the 2004 National Exit Poll. In each case, the recorded votes were used as the baseline, rather than total votes cast. Uncounted votes and an estimate of the True Vote were ignored.

To use a fraudulent recorded vote as the basis for calculating swing and then claim that the near-zero correlation “kills the fraud argument” is a logical fallacy. Elections can be fraudulent or fraud-free regardless of the correlation. The scatter graphs below kill the naysayer 2004 Swing/ Red shift “no slope, no fraud” canard.

In the 1988-2008 elections, Democratic presidential candidates did nearly 8% better in unadjusted exit polls (52-42%) than in the recorded vote (48-46%). The discrepancies were due to a combination of uncounted votes and electronic vote switching. The uncounted vote rate trend has declined, but electronic vote switching has more than taken up the slack.

Unfortunately, the National Election Pool (NEP) mainstream media consortium has never released unadjusted precinct exit poll data. Their transparent claim is the need for exit poll respondent confidentiality. It’s a misleading canard; exit poll respondents do not reveal personal information.

In their 2004 report, the pollsters provided average Within Precinct Error (WPE) statistics for the 1988-2004 exit polls. That report provided more than enough historical information to hoist the NEP, the pollsters and the naysayers on their own petard.

True and Recorded Vote Swing v. Red shift (based on 238 state exit polls).

In 1992 the WPE was 5.4. The correlations: 0.21 Recorded Vote and 0.40 True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: -0.20. There were nearly 11 million uncounted votes.

In 1996 the WPE was 1.9. The Recorded Vote correlation was nearly zero (.02). The True Vote correlation was 0.43. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.10. There were nearly 10 million uncounted votes.

In 2000 the exit poll discrepancies (2.0 WPE) were much lower than in 2004. But the 0.38 Recorded vote correlation was higher than 2004. The True Vote correlation was 0.66. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.57. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

In 2004, the WPE was 7.4. Recorded Vote correlation: 0.11. True Vote correlation was 0.56. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.62. There were close to 4 million uncounted votes.

In 2008, the WPE was at its highest: 10.3. The regression lines diverged, as indicated by the correlation ratios: -0.38 for Recorded Vote vs. 0.42 for the True Vote. Unadjusted exit poll correlation: 0.60.

In 2004, the average Battleground State Recorded vote correlation was 0.45; it was near zero in Democratic and Republican states. But the exit poll discrepancies (WPE) in the Democratic states were higher than the Battleground states – another refutation of the premise.



This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

-Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (exactly matching the True Vote Model).
-Kerry won the state exit polls by 51-47.6% and had 51.7% in the National (2% lower than the True Vote Model).
-Gore won the states by 50-45%, a 6 million vote margin. It was a close match to the TVM).
-Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in battleground states by 51-47%. He lost the recorded vote by 53-45% (7 million votes).

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 2, 2011 in Election Myths, Rebuttals


Tags: , , , ,


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 784 other followers