RSS

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

17 Oct

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov 5, 2012

The final 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote. His projected 51.6% two-party recorded share was close to the actual 51.9%. But Obama actually did much better in the True Vote forecast (391 EV, 56% two-party). As usual, the systematic fraud factor was in effect, causing a 4-5% red-shift. But Obama overcame the fraud, just as he did in 2008.

The final 2008 Election Model was also right on the money. It forecast Obama would have 53.1% and 365.3 expected EV compared to his actual recorded 52.9% share and 365 EV. But he had a 58.0% True Vote Model share and 420 EV. His 58.0% weighted share of the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) confirmed the True Vote Model.. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37% (17,836 respondents).

The Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model is updated on a daily basis. The election is assumed to be held on the latest poll date.

Final Forecast: 11/06/2012 9am
Obama: 320.7 expected electoral votes; 99.6% win probability (498 of 500 trials).
He has a 332 snapshot EV (actual total).
He leads the state poll weighted average by 49.3-46.2% (51.6% 2-party share).
He leads 50.4-47.0% in 16 of 18 Battleground states with 184 of 205 EV.

Obama leads Romney in the RCP National average: 48.8-48.1%.
Rasmussen and Gallup are Likely Voter (LV) polls which lean to the GOP.
Rasmussen: Romney 49-48%.
Gallup: Romney 50-49%. It was 51-46% a week ago.

Obama leads in the Rand poll 49.5-46.2% (closely matching the state polls). Unlike the national LV polls, the Rand poll doesn’t eliminate respondents but rather weights them on a scale of 1-10 (based on voter preference and intention to vote).

The 3% Obama margin increase in the Rand poll over the national LV polls illustrates why the LVs understate Obama’s margin by using the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). LV polls are a subset of the registered voter (RV) sample. They always understate the Democratic share. The majority of voters eliminated by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) are Democrats.


The True Vote Model indicates that Obama would have 55.2% of the two-party vote with 371 expected EV in a fraud-free election. Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model (html)
- The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls and currently assumes an equal split of undecided voters. The expected electoral vote is the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

- The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

The model calculates an estimated True Vote forecast for the National aggregate or any state. The calculation is displayed below the input data section. State poll-based national vote shares, electoral vote and probabilities are displayed on the right side of the screen.

2008 True Vote 2012 Vote Pct Obama Romney
Obama 76.2 58.0% 72.4 68.8 54.2% 90% 10%
McCain 53.0 40.3% 50.3 47.8 37.7% 7% 93%
Other. 2.20 1.66% 2.10 1.97 1.6% 50% 50%
DNV ...................8.27 6.5% 59% 41%
Total 131.4 100% 124.8 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9%
..............True Vote........... 71.1 55.7
............. Recorded Vote....... 51.0% 47.2%
............. Projected 2-party... 51.6% 48.4%
............. Electoral Vote
............. Projected Snapshot.. 332 206
............. 500 Simulation Mean. 321 217
............. Expected True EV.... 385 153
............. EV Win Probability.. 99.8%

This worksheet contains the weekly polling trend analysis.

The polling data is from the Real Clear Politics (RCP) and Electoral-vote.com websites. The simulation uses the latest state polls.

View this 500 election trial simulation electoral vote frequency graph.

1988-2008: 274 State exit polls. An 8% Discrepancy

In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led both state and national exit polls by 52-42%. There were approximately 375,000 respondents in the 274 state polls and 90,000 respondents in the six national polls. Overall, an extremely low margin of error.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:
1) The Likely Voter Cutoff Model eliminates newly registered Democrats from the LV sub-sample. Kerry had 57-61% of new voters; Obama had 72%.
2) Exit poll precincts are partially selected based on the previous election recorded vote. 
3) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 226 of 274 exit polls red-shifted to the Republicans. Only about 137 would normally be expected to red-shift. The probability is zero.
4) 135 of 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error. Only 14 (5%) would normally be expected. The probability is ZERO.
5) 131 of the 135 exit polls that exceeded the margin of error red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability is ZERO.
 

No exit polls in 19 states

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six corporate media giants which funds the pollster Edison Research to do exit polling in the U.S and abroad. The NEP announced that they would not exit poll in 19 states, 16 of which are universally thought of as being solid RED states. Or are they? 

In 2008, Obama won exit polls in AK, AL, AZ, GA, NE, SD. He came close to winning in TX, KY, SC, TN, MS. These former RED states may have turned PURPLE. View this worksheet in the model. 

The bad news is that the NEP decision to eliminate the polls makes it easier for vote margins to be padded and electoral votes flipped. Without the polls, it is much more difficult to calculate the statistical probabilities of fraud based on exit poll discrepancies. In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats led the unadjusted state exit polls by 52-42%, but by just 48-46% in the official recorded vote. This is a mathematically impossible result which proves systemic election fraud.

The good news is that the post-election True Vote Model should find implausible discrepancies in the recorded state and national votes. After all, that is what it was designed to do.

Sensitivity Analysis

The pre-election TVM built in the 2012 Election Model uses alternative scenarios of 2008 voter turnout and defection rates to derive a plausible estimate of the total final share. The returning voter assumptions are based on Obama’s 58% True Vote (a plausible estimate) and his 53% recorded share. The latter scenario results in vote shares that are close to the LV polls.

The sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios is an important feature in the model. The model displays the effects of effects of incremental changes in turnout rates and shares of returning voters. The tables display nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. Obama’s vote share, winning margin and popular vote win probability are displayed for each scenario.

Registered and Likely Voters

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters are allocated and have been confirmed by the True Vote Model.

Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of Registered Voter polls and are excellent predictors of the recorded vote – which always understate the Democratic True Vote. One month prior to the election, the RV polls are replaced by LVs. An artificial “horse race” develops as the polls invariably tighten.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) understates the voter turnout of millions of new Democrats, thereby increasing the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in RV polls than in the LVs. Based on the historical record, the Democratic True Vote share is 4-5% higher than the LV polls indicate. The LVs anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 55% True Vote share.

Media pundits and pollsters are paid to project the recorded vote – not the True Vote. The closer they are, the better they look. They never mention the fraud factor which gets them there, but they prepare for it by switching to LV polls.

The disinformation loop is closed when the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls are adjusted to match the LV recorded vote prediction.

2004 and 2008 Election Models

The 2004 model matched the unadjusted exit polls. Kerry had 51.7% and 337 electoral votes. But the election was stolen. Kerry had 48.3% recorded. View the 2004 Electoral and popular vote trend

The 2008 model exactly matched Obama’s 365 EV. The National model exactly matched his official recorded 52.9% share; the State model projected 53.1%. His official margin was 9.5 million votes.

Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted, weighted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) which exactly matched the post-election True Vote Model. Obama’s 23 million True Vote margin was too big to steal.

The National Exit Poll displayed on mainstream media websites (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc.) indicates that Obama had 52.9% – his recorded vote. Unadjusted state and national exit polls are always forced to match the recorded share.

But the media never discussed the fact that Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents). View the 2008 Electoral and popular vote trend

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

The True Vote Model

The 2008 True Vote Model (TVM) determined that Obama won in a landslide by 58-40.3%. Based on the historical red-shift, he needs at least a 55% True Vote share to overcome the systemic 5% fraud factor. The TVM was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: Obama had an identical 58-40.5% margin (83,000 respondents). He won unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by an even bigger 61-37% margin.

In projecting the national and state vote, a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. The TVM uses estimated 2008 voter turnout in 2012 and corresponding 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate result.

There are two basic options for estimating returning voters. The default option assumes the unadjusted 2008 exit poll as a basis. The second assumes the recorded vote. It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The 1988-2008 True Vote Model utilizes estimates of previous election returning and new voters and and adjusted state and national exit poll vote shares.

Monte Carlo Simulation

The simulation consists of 500 election trials. The electoral vote win probability is the number of winning election trials divided by 500.

There are two forecast options in the model. The default option uses projections based on the latest pre-election state polls. The second is based on the state True Vote. The fraud factor is the difference between the two.

The projected vote share is the sum of the poll and the undecided voter allocation (UVA). The model uses state vote share projections as input to the Normal Distribution function to determine the state win probability.

In each election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated for each state and compared to Obama’s state win probability. If RND is greater than the win probability, the Republican wins the state. If RND is less than the win probability, Obama wins the state. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 electoral votes. The process is repeated in 500 election trials.

Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.
1. The Snapshot EV is a simple summation of the electoral votes. It could be misleading if close state elections favor one candidate.
2. The Mean EV is the average of the 500 simulated election trials.
3. The Theoretical EV is the product sum of the state electoral votes and corresponding win probabilities. A simulation or meta-analysis is not required to calculate the expected EV.

The Mean EV approaches the Theoretical EV as the number of election trials increase. This is an illustration of the Law of Large Numbers.

Obama’s electoral vote win probability is his winning percentage of 500 simulated election trials.

The national popular vote win probability is calculated using the national aggregate of the the projected vote shares. The national margin of error is 1-2% lower than the MoE of the individual states. That is, if you believe the Law of Large Numbers and convergence to the mean.

The Fraud Factor

The combination of True Vote Model and state poll-based Monte Carlo Simulation enables an analyst to determine if the forecast electoral and popular vote share estimates are plausible. The aggregate state poll shares can be compared to the default TVM.

The TVM can be forced to match the aggregate poll projection by…
- An incremental change in vote shares. A red flag would be raised if the match required that Obama captured 85% of returning Obama voters and Romney had 95% of returning McCain voters (a 10% net defection).

- Adjusting 2008 voter turnout in 2012. For example, if McCain voter turnout is required to be 10-15% higher than Obama’s, that would raise a red flag.

- Setting the returning voter option to the 2008 recorded vote. The implicit assumption is that the 2008 recorded vote was the True Vote. But the 2008 election was highly fraudulent. Therefore, the model vote shares will closely match the likely voter polls.

Check the simulated, theoretical and snapshot electoral vote projections and corresponding win probabilities.

In 2004, Election Model forecasts were posted weekly using the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final Nov.1 forecast had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

2004 Election Model Graphs

State aggregate poll 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

In the 2006 midterms, the adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to match the House 52-46% Democratic margin. But the 120 Generic Poll Trend Model forecast that the Democrats would have a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted exit poll.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% recorded share. He won by 9.5 million votes. But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – even before undecided voters were allocated. The landslide was denied.

The post-election True Vote Model determined that Obama won by 23 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share matched the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

Exit pollsters and media pundits have never explained the massive 11% state exit poll margin discrepancy or the impossible 17% National Exit Poll discrepancy. If they did, they would surely claim that the discrepancies were due to reluctant Republican responders. But they will not even try to explain the impossible returning voter adjustments required to force the polls to match the recorded vote in the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections.

2008 Election Model Graphs
Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram

Published 10/27/12:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
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 Election 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 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

About these ads
 
28 Comments

Posted by on October 17, 2012 in 2008 Election, 2012 Election

 

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

28 responses to “Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

  1. C Graff

    October 22, 2012 at 8:02 am

    In short, “Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?”

     
  2. JustMe

    October 22, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    I happened upon your blog thru Google. 2 major problems with your data, What polls are you basing these numbers on? The RCP averages show almost a 50-50 split, which reflects the country pretty accurately based on political affiliation and LV polls.

    2. If everything were this much of a fraud and conspiracy, Democrats would never win, which as we see is not happening. Also, a lot of the most populous states have democrat dominated election commissions . If fraud was true then democrats would have to be in on the conspiracy. Take some meds.

     
  3. Chris Wronski

    October 29, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Richard, I think what Mags was saying was that by making questionable choices, ie: Sarah Palin, the GOP deliberately tanked the election for the reason Mags stated.

     
  4. Tess

    October 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Your presidential projections always show the same party winning. That tells me your partisan. A quick search to find the sites you frequent and have been removed from confirms you are partisan. You can keep your stupid “analysis.” I’m too intelligent for you.

     
    • mags

      October 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm

      Intelligent you may be but not well educated you said, “your partisan” but I think you meant “you’re partisan”!!!

       
    • Richard Charnin

      October 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm

      Tess, you are too intelligent for me? Well, it must be true because you have just provided an overwhelming set of facts to prove your case. NOT. Yes, you have proved I am partisan. NOT. OK, tell me specifically what you are looking for. Because you are too intelligent for me, I will try to locate them for you – since you are so intelligent and cannot bother to do so for yourself.

      Does your information prove that the Democrats did NOT win the TRUE VOTE in 2000 and 2004, and that Bush did NOT steal both elections. I would like to see it.

      Because you are so intelligent, you apparently have the proof and can show it to us. And because you are so intelligent, you can also prove that there is no such thing as ELECTION FRAUD.

      Yes, Tess, you are much more intelligent than I am. You are so intelligent, that I don’t expect that you will review the FACTS and the mathematical proof that the elections were stolen, based on the unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote Model and the reams of other evidence. You are too intelligent to have to actually do an investigation and analysis of the FACTS.

      Yes, Tess, I admit you are much more intelligent than I am – in your own mind.

       
  5. Chris Wronski

    October 30, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Tess, you are so intelligent that you have created a new meaning for the word “your”. Way to go!

    Keep up the good work Richard!

     
  6. Jack Lewis

    November 2, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Richard, you present systematic differences between exit polls and recorded votes as proof of election fraud, but in order for that to be proof you must eliminate the possibility of systematic bias in exit polls. Have you considered that (1) exit polls do not include absentee and mail-in voters, (2) the majority of curmudgeons who refuse to be exit-polled might be Republican, (3) other potential sources of bias?

    Also are you familiar with Choquette and Johnson’s report that claims to prove vote-flipping starting in 2008? The anomalies they’ve identified do not exist in earlier years.

    http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf

    I notice that, in your bar chart showing frequency with which MoE was exceeded, 2008 is much higher than all previous years. So maybe there was already a systematic bias and fraud was introduced in 2008. I would really like to see a comparison between exit poll results and Choquette and Johnson’s projections of the true vote based on smaller precincts. Have you looked at 2012 (and 2008) Republican Primary exit polls and found evidence of votes being shifted to Romney??

     
  7. factcheckr

    November 4, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    A couple of things: You say that “Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted, weighted state exit poll aggregate”. I assume you are referring to the final feed from the NEP, after the polls close and the exit poll data is weighted, but before it is adjusted to conform to official results. What is your source for this data? As I recall, at the time the data was only available to subscribers who had to sign severe non-disclosure agreements. Second, assuming that voters who make up their minds at the last minute will be evenly divided is risky. I believe they historically break toward the challenger–obviously irrelevant in 2008, but relevant this time. Lastly, what is your opinion of the unprecedented level of early voting this year, and how it will affect the accuracy of exit polling?

     
    • Richard Charnin

      November 4, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      I am referring to the total 82,388 sample unadjusted state exit polls from the NEP. The data source is Roper; it is publicly available.

      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/state_exitpolls.html#.UJc6RG872Aj

      The unadjusted state and national exit polls for each of the 1988-2008 elections:

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

      Notice that the state exit polls are weighted by votes cast. Pre-weighted and weighted aggregate vote shares are shown. The weighted share is generally 1-2% higher than the unweighted for the Democrat.

      Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents), but just a 52.87% recorded share. The pollsters had to effectively reduce Obama’s exit poll respondents from 10873 to 9430 (13.3%) in order to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote.

      http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=35

      It is true that undecided voters typically break for the challenger.
      I assume that the undecided will break fairly evenly. There are very few who are still undecided. In any case, the LV polls understate Obama’s share because of the Likely Voter Cutoff model. Most rejected registered voters are Democrats.

      Since polling samples are at least partially based on prior election recorded votes and not votes cast, they are implicitly biased to favor the Republicans. That is another factor to be considered.

      Bottom line is that undecided voters are a minor factor in any case. The pollsters have already allocated undecided voters since the totals are very close to 100% when you consider the third party vote – which probably hurts Obama more than Romney.

      As far as early voting is concerned, I believe it will favor Obama. High voter turnout always favors the Democrat.

      Finally, I will reiterate what I said in my daily update: Obama’s True Vote must be at least 55% to overcome the built-in systemic fraud factor.

       
  8. Pingback: Ashley Hastie
  9. http://tinyurl.com/housdavis29390

    February 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    You produced some excellent points throughout ur posting, “Updated Daily: Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Forecast
    Model Richard Charnin’s Blog”. I may wind up coming back to ur page before long. Thx ,Bette

     

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 780 other followers

%d bloggers like this: