RSS

Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose: The 2012 Presidential True Vote Projection Model

19 Feb

The 2012 Presidential True Vote Projection Model

Updated: April 29, 2012

The systemic Election Fraud that Democrats won’t talk about could cause Obama to lose – just like Gore and Kerry. The unadjusted 2008 State exit polls indicate that Obama had 420 EV and a 58% share – exactly matching the State and National True Vote Model (TVM).

Officially, Obama had 365 EV and a 52.9% recorded share. He needs at least a 55% True Vote share to break even – if you believe the TVM and the unadjusted exit polls. The model shows how Obama could win the True Vote and still lose the election.

The model will be updated periodically to include state and national pre-election polls. A Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation has been added to calculate the probability of winning under various scenarios.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=14

Sensitivity Analysis

No model is complete without considering the effects of alternative input scenario assumptions. Sensitivity tables display Obama vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities over a range of assumptions.

The theoretical expected EV is the product sum of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

Pollsters and pundits never consider election fraud as the cause of exit poll discrepancies. Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls have usually been accurate predictors of the recorded vote. The polls are subsets of Registered Voter (RV) polls. The majority of potential voters excluded in the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are newly registered young Democrats.

Final Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even when the adjustments are mathematically impossible. It’s standard operating procedure.

Pre-election and exit poll samples consider prior election recorded vote trends. But the recorded votes always understate the true Democratic share. From 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average of the state presidential unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

Of the 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 226 (82%) shifted from the exit poll in favor of the GOP – a zero (3.7E-31) probability. Of the 274, 126 (46%) exceeded the margin of error – a zero (8E-75) probability. At the 95% confidence level, about 14 would be expected to exceed. But that’s not all. Of the 126 which exceeded the margin or error, 123 (98%) moved from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the vote. The probability is zero (5.4E-106.)

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV

About these ads
 
5 Comments

Posted by on February 19, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , ,

5 responses to “Obama May Win the True Vote and Still Lose: The 2012 Presidential True Vote Projection Model

  1. s e (@oldgulph)

    March 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

     
  2. johnmsawyer

    October 21, 2012 at 4:34 am

    Thanks for your great work, Mr. Charnin. I hope that eventually enough people will wake up and do something about the election fraud by Republicans that has been commonplace for many years.

    I have a possible correction to one of the sentences in the article on this page. Where you say “Final Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even when the adjustments are mathematically possible”, shouldn’t that be “mathematically IMpossible”?

     
  3. Dan Allen

    November 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Richard, I really appreciate your work. Just found it tonight, via Blackbox Voting.

    I have a beginner’s question: why don’t the Democrats want to talk about systemic voter fraud? I am sorry if you have explained this elsewhere. Any information you can provide would be extremely much appreciated.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      November 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm

      My theory: they have to keep the veneer of a fully functioning 2-party system alive. If systemic election fraud were revealed the history books would have to be re-written. That would be a very traumatic experience for the national psyche.

       

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: