# Category Archives: 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA)

## Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Nov.4,2013

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. View the state and national numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. 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.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the 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 projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

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

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unajusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
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) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
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) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

## 2010 Florida and Ohio Governor elections: How the unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the final recorded vote

Richard Charnin

June 15, 2012

We do not have the unadjusted Walker recall exit poll numbers. If we did, we could do an analysis similar to the following.

The 2010 Florida and Ohio Governor exit polls were adjusted to match the vote counts – and red-shifted from the Democrat to the Republican.

In Florida, Sink (D) won the exit poll by 50.8-45.4% but lost the recorded vote to Scott by 48.4-49.6%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,150 respondents. The margin of error was 2.3%. Sink had a 99% win probability.

In Ohio, Strickland (D) won the exit poll by 49.9-47.4% but lost the vote to Kasich by 49.8-47.7%, a 4.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,305 respondents. The margin of error was 2.2%. Strickland had an 88% win probability.

In order to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to change ALL demographic category weightings from the unadjusted to the Final.

The final exit polls show the adjusted weightings for the key demographic categories. But keep in mind that similar changes had to have been made in ALL demographic crosstabs.

Since we have the unadjusted weightings from the Roper site, we can estimate the “pristine” unadjusted vote shares by “goal-seeking” (trial and error). Then we can calculate the changes in weightings and vote shares that were required to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote. These are shown on the right side of the Ohio and Florida worksheet screens.

This spread sheet shows the key exit poll crosstabs – and the adjustments:
2010 Midterms Spreadsheet: Ohio and Florida Governor

Faulty exit polling?

Why is it that the pundits always assume that the exit poll discrepancies are always the result of faulty polling? You would think that after 50 years, the exit pollsters would get it right. And they do get it right, but very few know it.

They get it right in the unadjusted exit polls. But they just keep on adjusting the polls anyway – to match the vote. That is what they get paid for. Otherwise, they would no longer be polling for the National Election Pool.

So what is getting it “right”? Is it forcing the exit polls to match the recorded vote – even when the election is rigged? Or is it by declaring that the uncontaminated, unadjusted exit poll stands by itself – and is a close approximation to the True Vote.

2010 Governor True Vote Analysis

When you think about it, we can’t expect the exit pollsters to ever say that their surveys indicate election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the true margin of error is exceeded.

The question to ask is: why are the category weights and vote shares changed in the first place? But we already know the answer. It’s what the pollsters and the media won’t talk about. It’s because of election fraud. If they didn’t adjust the numbers, the media would have to report them. And the last thing the media wants to do is to discuss is how voting machines are programmed to miscount the votes.

But how do we prove it?

The Ultimate Smoking Gun: 1988-2008 state presidential exit polls

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls, of which 226 red-shifted from the poll to the vote for the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. Assuming no fraud, approximately 150 would be expected for each. The probability P that 252 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = Binomdist (63, 75, .5, false) ^ 4
P = 2.3E-37
P = 1 in 4 trillion trillion trillion

The margin of error was exceeded in 126 of the 274 polls (only 14 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is ZERO:
P =Poisson (126, .05*274, false)

The margin of error was exceeded in 123 of exit polls in favor of GOP (only 7 would be expected). The probability P is:
P= 5E-106 = Poisson (123,.025*274, false)

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 of states (n) 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, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the deviation between the exit poll and recorded vote.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 46.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 50.3 45.7 4.6
1992 44.. 26… 2.4E-25….. 47.6 43.0 4.6
1996 43.. 16… 4.9E-13….. 52.6 49.3 3.3
2000 34.. 12… 8.7E-09….. 50.8 48.4 2.4
2004 40.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 51.1 48.3 2.8
2008 45.. 36… 2.4E-37….. 58.0 52.9 5.1

Total 252. 134. 5.0E-115… 51.8 47.9 3.9

2010 Unadjusted National Exit Poll to Final (Red-shift)

Voted 2008 (Obama-McCain)
48-45 to 45-45 (3)

Party ID
37D- 35.8R- 27.2I to 35-35-30 (1.2)

Ideology
20.6% Liberal – 40.9% Moderate – 38.5% Conservative to 20-38-42

2010 State Unadjusted Exit Poll to Final (Red-shift)

Gender (M/F)
OH 45.5-54.5 to 48-52 (5)
FL 42.9-57.1 to 45-55 (4.2)

Party ID
OH 38.4D- 33.8R- 27.8I to 36-36-20 (4.6)
FL 39.3D- 33.9R- 26.8I to 35-36-27 (6.4)

Governor Vote
OH 49.9D-47.4R to 47-50 (recorded 47.8-49.8) (4.5)
FL 50.8D-45.4R to 48-50 (recorded 48.4-49.6) (5.6)

Obama Approval
OH 45.8 to 42 (3.2)
FL 49.2 to 45 (4.2)

Voted 2008 (Obama-McCain)
OH 50.3-45.4 to 44-47 (7.9)
FL 52.2-44.2 to 47-47 (8.0)

## 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.

## 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

## 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.