The Walker Recall: Is the Past Prologue?

The Walker Recall: Is the Past Prologue?

Richard Charnin
May 24, 2012

In a previous Walker recall election analysis the Wisconsin True Vote Model indicated that Barrett would win in a fair election with 53-54%.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine what it took for Walker to win in 2010 – and how this information may provide insight into what we can expect in the recall. Walker defeated Barrett by 125,000 recorded votes (52.2-46.6%). Approximately 69% of 2008 voters turned out in 2010.

The base case assumption in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model is that Obama had a 60% vote share. This estimate was based on the average of his 63-35% Wisconsin exit poll margin and 56-42% recorded margin. The 14% discrepancy is a very strong indicator that Obama did much better than his 56% official share. In other words, the election was fraudulent.

The 2010 Election

Approximately 69% of 2008 voters turned out in the 2010 Wisconsin Governor race. The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Walker 52.2-46.6%).

In order to achieve the match, the exit pollsters showed that 49% of the Wisconsin electorate were returning Obama and 43% returning McCain voters. The spread is significantly lower than the 14% recorded margin. It implied that that 66% of Obama voters and 77% of McCain voters returned in 2010 – a net 11% turnout advantage to Walker.

The exit poll also indicates that Barrett had 83% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain voters – a net 10% defection of returning voters to Walker.

In addition, 3% of 2010 voters were returning third-party. The remaining 5% did not vote in 2008. Unfortunately, the poll does not indicate how they voted (n/a). But Walker needed to win these voters by a 20% margin in order to match the recorded vote.

To summarize, in order to match the recorded vote, the Final adjusted 2010 Wisconsin exit poll assumed
1) ZERO fraud in 2008 and
2) McCain voter turnout exceeded Obama by 11%.
3) 16% of Obama voters defected to Walker and 7% of McCain voters to Barrett.
4) Walker had a 20% margin in new and returning third-party voters.

The 2012 True Vote Model

Unlike the Final adjusted National Exit Poll, the True vote model is based on a feasible turnout of prior election voters and corresponding vote shares of returning and new voters. The model considers alternative scenarios of the prior election (i.e. recorded vote, unadjusted exit poll, estimated True Vote). As stated above, the base case assumption is that Obama’s 2008 True Vote (60%) was lower than the unadjusted exit poll (2545 respondents) but higher than the recorded vote. The base case 60% assumption is conservative as it is 3.3% below the 63.3% exit poll share (2.4% margin of error). Based on the poll, there was a near 100% probability that Obama’s true Wisconsin share exceeded 60%.

What does this portend for the recall?
Three scenarios:

1) Fraud: Walker wins by a similar margin as he did in 2010 (125,000 votes)
2) Fraud: But not enough to steal the election. Barrett wins by 70,000.
3) No fraud. Barrett wins by at least 160,000.

1988-2008: the 8% unadjusted exit poll margin discrepancy

Unadjusted state and national exit poll data is available on the Roper website. The Democrats won the aggregate 1988-2008 presidential unadjusted exit polls by 52-42% -an 8% discrepancy in margin from the 48-46% recorded vote. Bloggers, pollsters and academics are apparently unaware that the data even exists. After all, the NY Times and CNN never reported that fact. But they do show exit polls adjusted to conform to bogus recorded votes on their websites.

How many voters are aware that Obama won the Unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by a super-landslide 61-37% margin? Or that he won the state aggregate exit polls (82,388 respondents) by 58-40.5%? The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by implying an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters.

In every election the pollsters force state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accomplish this by adjusting all demographic crosstabs that are displayed in the various mainstream media election sites. As a result of the forced match to the recorded vote, the “pristine” demographic percentages are contaminated. In other words, by matching to the recorded vote, final exit polls disguise the true intent of various classes of voters.

 

Wisconsin Governor Recall: A True Vote Model Analysis

Wisconsin Governor Recall: A True Vote Model Analysis

Richard Charnin
May 3, 2012

Barrett should win easily – assuming ZERO fraud.
But there WILL be fraud. So let’s look at the scenarios.

Let’s check out the Wisconsin True Vote Model.

In 2008, Obama had a 56.2% recorded vote share in Wisconsin. But he had 63.2% in the unadjusted exit poll (n=2,545 respondents). The poll had a 2.43% margin of error (including a 30% “cluster effect”).

MoE = (1+cluster) * Stdev * sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)
MoE = 2.43% = 1.3 * 1.96 * sqrt(.639*.361/2545)

There is a near 100% probability that Obama’s True Wisconsin share exceeded 60%:

All of the following scenarios assume that Obama had a 60% WI share.
___________________________________________________________________________

CONSERVATIVE Base Case assumptions (favoring Walker)

Returning 2008 Voter Turnout (net 5% to Walker)
65% Obama voter turnout
70% McCain voter turnout

Voter Defection (net 5% to Walker)
Barrett wins 90% of returning Obama voters
Barrett wins 5% of returning McCain voters

Barrett wins by 54.6-45.4% (198,000 votes)
Walker needs to steal 8.4% of Democratic votes to win.

___________________________________________________________________________

Zero Net Turnout and Voter Defection Scenarios

1. Equal 70% turnout; Barrett wins 90% of Obama and 5% of McCain voters
Barrett has 56.2% and wins by 267,000 votes.
Walker needs to steal 11% to win.

2. Equal 70% Turnout; Barrett wins 95% of Obama and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 59% and wins by 387,000 votes.
Walker needs to steal 15% to win.
___________________________________________________________________________

Democratic Worst Case Scenarios

1. Voter Turnout: 65% of Obama; 70% of McCain
Barrett wins 85% of Obama voters and 0% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 50.2% and wins by 9,000 votes.

2. Voter Turnout: 60% Obama; 75% McCain
Barrett wins 90% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 51.8% and wins by 80,000 votes.

___________________________________________________________________________

Implausible Scenarios required for Walker to win a fair election

1. Voter Turnout: 55% Obama; 80% McCain
Vote share: Barrett wins 90% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 49.1% and loses by 38,000.

2. Voter Turnout: 65% Obama; 70% McCain
Vote share: Barrett wins 80% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters.
Barrett has 49.4% and loses by 25,000.

 

Wisconsin Recalls: Exit Polls and the True Vote Model

Sept 7, 2011

In each of the five Citizen Exit Polls conducted in two Wisconsin districts, the Democrats did much better than the official count (67.8% vs. 52.4% on average). Why the large discrepancies? Are the polls to be believed? This analysis provides a possible explanation, keeping in mind that it is based on a limited number of exit poll locations.

The Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDRwcWRPTUZoZk53YUlxOEVMT0FnX3c#gid=11

It is important to understand the difference between the Wisconsin Citizen exit polls and corporate sponsored state and national exit polls in prior elections. The Citizen polls had a very simple aim: to compare how respondents said they voted to the official count.

State and National Exit Polls: Forced to Match the Recorded Vote
Corporate state and national exit polls are designed to determine how various demographic groups voted. The National Exit Pool (NEP) is the consortium of six media giants that funds state and national exit polls.
The NEP uses stratified sampling to select precinct locations that are representative of the voting population.

It is standard operating procedure to force Final state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote. It is also standard policy for the NEP to keep “unadjusted” precinct exit poll data hidden from the public, claiming the need to protect voter “privacy”. It’s a canard; exit poll responders do not reveal their identity. There is no excuse for suppressing the release of unadjusted precinct exit poll data.

Recall Exit Poll Discrepancies
In three strong Democratic recall locations, Democratic exit poll shares (78.8%) were significantly higher than the vote counts (66.9%). Shorewood was 10.9% higher, Pardeeville 8.5% and Baraboo 15.8%. The True Vote Model (TVM) closely matched the recorded votes. Overall voter participation was 52%. If the vote counts were correct, 61% of Democrats and 33% of Republicans responded. Republican voters may have been reluctant to respond in these heavily Democratic locations. If that was the case, then the exit polls overstated the True Democratic vote.

In the two strong Republican locations (Butler and Menomonee Falls), the Democrats had 43.1% in the exit polls compared to 31.5% in the count(16.5% higher in Butler, 11.0% in Menomonee). In the TVM, the Democrats did 11.0% and 8.3% better, respectively. Overall just 33% of voters participated. If the vote counts were correct, then 45% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans responded – an implausible Democratic participation in these strong GOP locations. Therefore, it is likely that the votes were miscounted and the exit polls were close to the True Vote.

The aggregate Democratic True Vote share was 55.2%, a very close match to the 55.5% aggregate share calculated based on equal Democratic and Republican response in each location.

The discrepancies could also have been due to a combination of vote miscounts and differential response. Assuming equal Democratic and Republican response rates, Democratic shares were 73.0% (6.1% higher than recorded) in Democratic locations and 35.4% in Republican locations (3.9% higher).

Republican Exit Poll Response Required to Match Recorded Vote
The total Democratic exit poll response rate was 57%; the Republican rate was 30%. Democratic response exceeded Republican response in each of the five locations. What if the overall Republican response was also 57%? What would the response have to be in each location for the exit poll to match the recorded vote (52.4% Dem, 47.6% Rep)? Using the Excel Solver algorithm, the required Republican response was derived (Democratic response was held constant to the actual exit poll). Republican response was constrained to exceed Democratic response in Menomonee Falls and Butler. The required response rates were not plausible (see the table below). Republican response exceeded Democratic response in 4 of the 5 locations (including Democratic strongholds Pardeeville and Shorewood). In Pardeeville, 100% of Republican voters responded.

Exit Poll Refusal Rates
We define Exit Poll refusals as the difference between the total number of non-responders and the number of non-responders required to match the recorded vote. The refusal rate is the ratio of refusals to the recorded vote. The average Republican refusal rate in Democratic locations was 18.8%: Baraboo 16.6%, Pardeeville 12.9%, Shorewood 22.5%. In Republican locations, the rate was 5.6%: Menomonee Falls 5.9%, Butler 5.2%. Republican voters were four times more likely to refuse an exit poll interview in Democratic than in Republican locations.

Based on the True Vote Model and the exit polls, it is very likely that the District 8 and 14 recall elections were stolen. The Republicans control the state senate by a 17-16 majority, but the Democrats should be in control by 18-15.

True Vote Model
The TVM requires an estimate of the True Vote in the previous election in order to determine a plausible mix of returning voters. In 2008, Obama had a 56.2% recorded vote share in Wisconsin, but he had a whopping 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll. The margin of error was 2.4% (including a 30% cluster effect) for the 2545 respondents. It is obvious that using a miscounted recorded vote from the previous election as a basis for forecasting or post-election analysis will produce a fraudulent result in the current election.

These were the base case assumptions used in the TVM:
1) Equal percentage turnout of Obama/McCain voters.
2) Zero net defection: Democrats win 95% of returning Obama voters, Republicans win 95% of McCain voters.
3) New voters broke for the Democrats and Republicans in the same proportion as the 2008 recorded vote.

For each exit poll location, a sensitivity analysis table displays Democratic vote shares based on nine scenario combinations of returning Obama and McCain voters. The base case scenario is the central cell of the 3×3 table.

2004 Exit Polls
In 2004, there were 1480 exit poll precinct polling locations nationwide. More than 76,000 voters participated. To explain the average 6.5% exit poll discrepancy, the exit pollsters hypothesized that 56 Kerry voters participated for every 50 Bush voters. They provided no evidence for this. They did not consider that the discrepancies may have been due to Election Fraud. The so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr) theory was refuted by the exit pollster’s own data which showed that exit poll response was higher in Bush strongholds than Kerry strongholds.

Link to the source data tables:
http://richardcharnin.com/WIRecallExitTrueRecorded.htm

 

Nine Wisconsin Recalls: A True Vote Analysis

A Statistical Analysis of the Wisconsin Recall Elections

Richard Charnin

Aug. 17, 2011

The numerical analysis is based on the Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model.
http://richardcharnin.com/TrueVoteModels.htm

The Democrats won 5 of the 9 recall elections and won the overall popular vote with a 50.5% share. In 2008, Obama won all 9 districts with a 54.5% share.

The Republicans won 4 of the 6 GOP districts with 55.2%. Obama had 51.5% in the four districts. To accomplish this, there had to be an implausibly low Obama voter turnout and/or an implausibly high defection of Obama voters.

The Democrats did 3.2% better than Obama in the three Democratic recalls, but 5.4% worse in the 6 GOP recalls, an implausible difference.

In the GOP districts, voter turnout was 65% of the 2008 presidential election; it was 48% in Democratic districts.

These anomalies, combined with documented evidence of voting irregularities and exit poll results, are very strong indicators of Election Fraud. It is very likely that the Democrats won at least seven of the nine elections.

In the 6 GOP recall elections, 65% of Obama and McCain voters returned to vote. Assuming zero net defection, approximately 58% of Obama voters and 85% of McCain voters turned out. That is a very implausible difference. Assuming equal 65% turnout, the Democrats won 82% of Obama voters and Republicans won 92% of McCain voters – an implausible 10% net Obama defection.

In the 2 GOP districts won by the Democrats with an average 53.2% share, Obama had 55.9%. Total turnout was 66%. Approximately 63% of Obama voters turned out. That is plausible. Assuming equal turnout, the Democrats won 91% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters. Very plausible.

The 3 Democratic recall elections were landslides. The Democrats had a 58.8% aggregate share. Obama had 55.5%. Approximately 48% of 2008 voters turned out. Assuming zero net defection, 52% were Obama and 44% McCain. That is plausible. Assuming equal 48% turnout, the Democrats won 98% of Obama and 8% of McCain voters (6% net McCain defection). Also plausible.

 

Can the GOP win the Aug 16 Democratic Recall Elections?

Can the GOP win the Aug 16 Democratic Recall Elections?

Richard Charnin

August 16, 2011

Election results are always a function of voter turnout, returning voter preference and…election fraud.
This is a scenario analysis to determine what it would take for the Democrats to lose one or both seats.

In the base case scenario we assume equal turnout of Obama and McCain voters, zero net defection and no fraud.
The sensitivity analysis tables display Democratic vote shares over a range of turnout and voter preferences.

District 12 is vulnerable.

In 2008, Obama had 52.5% in District 2 – and the GOP won the recall.
Obama had 52.8% in District 12.

Pre-election polls show Holperin winning,
Holperin will win, assuming zero fraud, zero net defection and equal turnout rates of Obama and McCain voters.

But he could still lose – if the election is stolen.
Assuming equal turnout rates of Obama and McCain voters, the GOP needs a 6% net defection of returning Obama voters to win.
Assuming equal turnout and zero net defection, the GOP would have to switch 4% of Holperin’s votes.

District 22 appears safe. Obama had 57.3% in the district.

Assuming equal turnout, the GOP needs a net 13% defection of Obama voters to capture the seat.
Assuming equal turnout and zero defection the GOP needs to switch 9% of Wirch’s votes.

Link to the source data analysis tables:
http://richardcharnin.com/WIDemRecalls.htm

 

Will the Democratic Recall Elections be Stolen? A True Vote Analysis

Will the Democratic Recall Elections be Stolen? A True Vote Analysis

Aug. 13, 2011

Richard Charnin

The Democrats won two of the six GOP recall elections. A post-election True Vote analysis indicates that they may have won all six.

The Republicans now have a 17-16 majority in the senate. But it won’t be enough to enact Walker’s agenda if just one Republican defects and votes with the Democrats. Now the Democrats need to defend two seats in the final recall elections: Jim Holperin in District 12 and Bill Wirch in District 22. The GOP needs one to get an 18-15 foolproof majority. Let’s see what it would take for the GOP to win a seat.

The analysis is based on the Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model.
http://richardcharnin.com/TrueVoteModels.htm

In any election, there are two key factors: voter turnout and voter preference. We know how many voters returned from the previous election (as a percentage). But we must estimate the percentage mix of returning Democrats and Republicans. The number of new voters is just the difference between total votes cast in the current election and returning voters. In the recall analysis, we will assume that new voters were split equally between the Democrats and the Republicans.

District 12:
Obama had 52.8%. Election fraud could cost the Democrats this seat (the GOP “won” District 2 where Obama had 52.5%).

Case 1: Zero net defection.
Democrat Holperin wins 95% of returning Obama voters and 5% of returning McCain voters.
The GOP wins if 60% of McCain voters turn out and fewer than 52% of Obama voters do.

Case 2: Assume equal 60% Obama and McCain turnout
The GOP wins if Holperin captures fewer than 88% of Obama voters.

District 22:
Obama had 57.3%. The probability that the Democrats will hold the seat is virtually 100%.

Case 1: Zero net defection.
Democrat Wirch wins 95% of returning Obama voters and 5% of returning McCain voters.
The GOP wins if 60% of McCain voters turn out and fewer than 45% of Obama voters do.

Case 2: Equal 60% Obama and McCain turnout
The GOP wins if Wirch captures fewer than 83% of Obama voters.

Click for the numerical sensitivity analysis tables.
http://richardcharnin.com/WIDemRecallProjection.htm

 

Did the GOP Steal the Wisconsin Recall Elections? A True Vote Analysis

Did the GOP Steal the Wisconsin Recall Elections? A True Vote Analysis

Aug. 11, 2011

Richard Charnin

http://richardcharnin.com/WIRecallFraud.htm

In a pre-election post, I indicated that only election fraud could keep the Democrats from winning three of the six GOP recall elections. They won two. This post-election analysis indicates that they did much better than that. They may very well have won all six.

The Democrats were highly motivated to win the Senate based on Walker policies, but the GOP had the advantage of massive funding – especially in District 8. The problem is to determine the voter turnout rates and voter preferences required to match the recorded vote shares.

The analysis is based on the Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model.

In any election, there are two key factors: voter turnout and voter preference. We know how many voters returned from the previous election (as a percentage). But we must estimate the percentage mix of returning Democrats and Republicans. The number of new voters is just the difference between total votes cast in the current election and returning voters. In the recall analysis, we will assume that new voters were split equally between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Voter mix is the percentage of returning and new voters to the total vote. For example, assume that in a precinct there are 1000 voters (480 returning Obama, 460 returning McCain voters, and 60 new voters). Then the voter turnout mix is 48% Obama, 46% McCain and 6% new). Let’s calculate the Democratic vote share assuming that he/she wins 95% of Obama voters, 5% of McCain voters and 50% of new voters.

Democratic share = Dem mix * Dem % of returning Obama voters + GOP mix * Dem % of returning McCain voters + New voter mix * Dem % of New voters
Democratic share = 50.9% = .48*.95 + .46*.05+ .06*.50 = .456 + .023 + .030

In mathematical terms, vote share is a function of voter turnout mix and voter preference:
Vote share = f (turnout mix, preference)

Obama won each of the six districts by a total 53.0-45.7% margin. Therefore assuming a) an equal percentage turnout of Obama and McCain voters in the recalls,and b) no changes in voter preference, the Democrats would win all six elections (see below). But since the GOP won four, there had to be a higher turnout rate of McCain voters than Obama voters and/or a net defection of Obama voters to the GOP. It’s simple math.

In the first set of calculations, we reasonably assume that a) 60% of McCain voters turned out in the recalls and b) there were zero net defections (Democrats won 95% of returning Obama voters and the GOP won 95% of returning McCain voters). In order to match the average recorded vote, Obama turnout had to be 45% compared to 60% for McCain.

In the second set, we assume that a) 60% of McCain voters and 60% of Obama voters turned out in the recalls and the GOP won 95% of returning McCain voters, but b) there were net defections of Obama voters to the GOP. In order to match the average recorded vote, the average Democratic share of Obama voters was a low 83%.

The two sets of scenarios are implausible.

In District 2, if 60% of McCain voters turned out, then just a minsicule 33% of Obama voters turned out (assuming zero net defection of Obama and McCain voters).

Assuming equal 60% turnout of Obama and McCain voters, there had to be a massive net 25% defection of Democrats from Obama to McCain.

In District 8, if 60% of McCain voters turned out, then just 47% of Obama voters turned out (assuming zero net defection). Assuming equal 60% Obama and McCain turnout, there was a 10% net defection of Democrats from Obama to McCain.

Therefore, Pasch won assuming equal turnout and zero net defection.

District 18 was won by King, the Democrat. The required Obama 58% turnout nearly matched the McCain 60%, again assuming zero net defection. Assuming equal 60% turnout, there was a tiny 1% net defection to McCain.

Both results are very plausible. It is not surprising that the Democrats won the seat.

District 32 was won by the Democrats. Obama had 61% so it would have raised eyebrows if the Democrats lost. A low 47% Obama turnout was required to match the Democratic 55.4% vote share. Assuming equal 60% turnout, the required 8% net defection to McCain is higher than one would expect.

Therefore, the Democrat Shilling probably did better than her recorded margin.

This is an example of the minimum Obama voter turnout and maximum voter defection that the Democrats needed to win all six elections:
a) Obama voter turnout (60%) had to at least match McCain turnout.
b) Democrats captured 93% of Obama and 5% of McCain voters (net 2% defection)

The Democrats needed an average 52.3% vote share to win all six districts.
By comparison, Obama had a 53.7% two party-share in the six districts.

Sensitivity Analysis
It is instructive to determine the impact (i.e. sensitivity) of changes in percentage voter turnout, voter preference and election fraud (vote switching).

The tables below display the number of Democratic recall victories over a range of assumptions for each of the three parameters.

Link to the full numerical analysis:
http://richardcharnin.com/WIRecallFraud.htm

 

Wisconsin Recall Election Projections

Wisconsin Recall Election Projections

Aug. 4, 2011

Richard Charnin

http://richardcharnin.com/WisconsinRecallElectionProjections.htm

The Democrats need to win 3 of 6 GOP seats in the recall elections to gain control of the Wisconsin senate.

Assuming the Wisconsin 2008 presidential election
1) Recorded vote shares and election fraud (expected) in the recall elections, the Democrats will win 1 or 2 GOP seats.
2) Recorded vote shares and zero election fraud in the recalls, the Democrats will likely win 3 GOP seats.
3) True Vote shares and zero fraud in the recalls, the Democrats would likely win 6 GOP seats.

The Wisconsin Recall Projection Model is based on the following assumptions for each of the 6 GOP districts:
1. 2008 Presidential Election recorded vote
2. Estimated 2008 Fraud Factor (i.e. reduction in Obama’s True District vote share)
3. Obama voter turnout rate in recall
4. McCain voter turnout rate in recall
5. Democratic share of returning Obama voters
6. Democratic share of returning McCain voters

For the selected district, two sensitivity analysis tables display nine Democratic vote share scenarios based on
1) Democratic vote shares of returning Obama and McCain voters
2) Obama and McCain turnout rates

Base Case Assumptions
1 Equal 63% Turnout of Obama and McCain voters
2 Democratic 91% share of Obama voters
3 Democratic 5% share of McCain voters

Case 1: Assuming the 2008 Recorded Presidential Vote and Zero fraud in the 6 Recall elections
Projection: Democrats win 3 recall elections

Case 2: Assuming the 2008 True Vote (Obama’s True Vote was 1.5% higher than recorded) and Zero fraud in the Recall elections
Projection: Democrats win 6 recall elections

Assuming the 2008 recorded vote and the recall elections are fraudulent, the Democrats will win 1 or 2 elections.

Recall Election Fraud Scenarios
Assume
1) Obama’s Wisconsin True Vote was 1% higher than recorded
2) Equal Obama/McCain percentage turnout in the recall elections
3) Democrats win 92% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters
then
The GOP needs to switch 2% of Democratic votes to retain senate control
Assuming the Democrats win 94% of returning Obama voters, the GOP would need to switch 3%.

 

2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

July 11,2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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