# Category Archives: 2012 Election

## JFK Assassination: Exposing Another Admitted Lone Nutter

JFK Assassination: Exposing Another Admitted Lone Nutter

Richard Charnin
March 25, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
Tables and Graphs

Motivation
Readers may wonder why I keep posting about my run-ins with Lone Nutters (LN) online. There are two basic reasons. Each post is unique in 1) rebutting WC defender disinformation and 2) providing instructive information for rational viewers. And I will continue to expose Lone Nutters as I see fit.

Once again, an internet troll and self-proclaimed LN has attempted to discredit JFK Witness death analysis. But as always his ignorance is exposed by his total lack of understanding of statistical methodology. He does not know the difference between Inferential Statistics (as used in political polling to infer the intentions of voters) and Descriptive Statistics, in which factual JFK-related witness death mortality data is used to calculate the various probabilities of unnatural deaths.

The following is just another example of how an unqualified disinformationist attempts to discredit scientific, fact-based analysis which proves a JFK Conspiracy.

KG
Mr. Charnin, regardless of what year you are using for national mortality rates this is a moot point because you analysis is fundamentally flawed. You can’t take a small group of 1400 people and compare this to a national average. It’s called random sampling error. This is a basic entry level statistics principle.

RC
KG, just love to keep promoting your ignorance, don’t you? A poll? You do not know the difference between descriptive and inferential statistics, even after I explained it to you. You are stuck in your agenda to disinform. But all you are doing is showing how ignorant you are.

The JFK witness analysis is NOT based on a poll. The 1400 JFK-related witnesses WERE NOT ASKED IF THEY DIED UNNATURALLY. How ridiculous can you get? This just shows why Lone Nutters are incapable of rudimentary statistical analysis.

One more time for emphasis: The 1400 JFK-related individuals were NOT polled. They were not a random sample. They were material witnesses. They were NOT asked to offer an OPINION. They were NOT asked if they DIED UNNATURALLY.

Are you still going to insist they were polled? Do you see how ridiculous that statement is? Or are you so ignorant that you cannot even see it? You apparently never took Basic Statistics 101. If you did, you failed.

The witness mortality data represents the official reported cause of death among JFK-related witnesses over a given time interval. It is NOT based on statistical inference. It is based on statistical FACTS. Apparently, you do not know the difference.

1400 JFK-related witnesses
See “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Among the 1400, approximately 80 died unnaturally in the period from 1964-78. That’s the officially ruled cause of death; the actual true total of unnatural deaths was close to 100 (the vast majority being homicides). In 1964, at least 21 in the group of 1400 died unnaturally. The probability is CALCULATED BASED ON FACTUAL DATA. Now YOU do the math. Apply the 1964 unnatural mortality rates. I already did. But I am sure that you don’t even know where to start.

KG, you are out of your league. You are a typical Warren Report apologist posing as one knowledgeable in mathematical statistics. But you have no expertise whatsoever. If you ever took a course in Probability and Statistics 101, you had better review your notes. If you never took the course, then you have no basis for pretending that you know what you are talking about. You are here to obfuscate facts which contradict your agenda of fooling people into believing the Warren Report. Sorry, KG, no magic bullet for you.

KG
Dear Richard, you are obviously very delusional. Quite simply you cannot compare mortality rates of a group of 1400 to national rates. These are completely different universes of comparisons that make it impossible to infer any meaningful inference between the two. Even common sense would dictate 77 out of 1400 dying unnaturally… between a period of over 14 years?! Come on Richard. That means absolutely nothing at all. Yes I’m a Lone Nutter but that doesn’t mean anything because the fact is this statistical analysis is innately faulty in the composition of populational data of comparison. Basic statistics Richard. And yes technically it is a poll, it is a random sample of extremely dispersed individuals with the only common thread being a vague association with the jfk assassination. The statistical inference of this population is impossible, as concluded by the HSCA in their investigation of the supposed mysterious deaths. It’s a dead end Richard, this was realized over 30 years ago. Time to let it go.

RC
You actually said “Even common sense would dictate 77 out of 1400 dying unnaturally… between a period of over 14 years!”. Another absolutely idiotic statement. You have no common sense, otherwise you would never have made that statement; it just further exposes your ignorance. This is not about what you believe to be “common sense”; it is about the application of historic mortality rates. Only 17 unnatural deaths would be statistically expected – not 77- in a random group of 1400 based on the average 0.000822 unnatural mortality rate in a 14 year period.

You have no shame, do you? I expose your deficiencies over and over again and you say it’s “time to let it go”? What you are really saying is: “Please go away, Richard, because you are beating the hell out of us each time we try to discredit you with our BS.”

KG, you are pulling out classic troll talking points which have all been refuted. I will have to refute them again. Right here. Right now.

Vague witness associations?
There are 126 suspicious deaths in the JFK Calc database. You claim they all have vague associations with the JFK Assassination? Tell us which ones are vague. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Do you mean witnesses such as Oswald, Tippit, Ruby, Sherman, Meyer, Cheramie, Ferry, Craig, Kilgallen, Bowers, Pitzer, RFK, DeMorenschildt, Roselli, Wallace, Carter, White, Stockdale, Underhill, Banister, Lovelady? Were they vaguely related to the assassination?

Do you mean the 7 FBI officials called to testify at HSCA who all died in a six month period in 1977 and never got to testify? Were they vaguely related?

Do you mean the 67 witnesses among the 126 who were called to testify and died unnaturally or suspiciously? Were they vaguely related?

If you had checked my probability analysis, you would know that I use JFK-weighted rates as well as national rates.

Dallas witness mortality
About 51 of the 126 JFK-witness deaths were in Dallas. In 1967, the Dallas population was 700,000 and there were 130 murders, a 0.000190 homicide rate. The Dallas rate was triple the national rate, so I tripled the average national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253.

The probability P of 34 official homicides from 1964-78 among 1400 material witnesses using the adjusted Dallas rate is P = 7.60e-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion. That is very close to the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination.

Now, KG, here is a simple question for you. Was it just a coincidence that at least 51 of the 126 suspicious deaths occurred in the Dallas area? Or was there an obvious connection among them? It’s got to be one or the other. Which is it, math wiz? Connection or no connection?

Now go to row 99 in the JFK Calc probability sheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

KG, your complete ignorance has just been laid bare for all to see. But that won’t stop you. You will be back for more – and you will look even more foolish then you do now. Perhaps, eventually, you will get the message. But I doubt it. Lone nutters never get it.

Posted by on March 16, 2014 in 2012 Election

## The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have
a) won 30% of returning Gore voters, b) won 90% of returning Bush voters, c) stolen the election.

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Assuming it was his True Vote, how many True Electoral Votes did he have?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 11 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1 , b) 2, c) 3 of the 11 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. The fact that it is standard operating procedure is
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). But he won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll cross tab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final approval rating was 48%. The National Exit Poll had 53%. The change was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free (true) vote. It utilizes exit poll shares and calculates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c
2c
3c
4c
5c
6a
7c
8c
9c
10c
11c
12a
13c
14c
15a
16c
17c
18c
19c
20c
21c
22c
23g
24c
25e

## Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis

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

Historical Overview

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. 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. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC 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 Final National Exit Poll adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that he had a 53% approval rating, but 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

## Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Richard Charnin
Jan. 14, 2013

In previous posts, we have noted the dramatic 7% difference between Obama’s Election Day and late recorded vote share in both 2008 and 2012. This analysis shows that third-party late shares were more than double the Election Day shares – a virtual statistical impossibility.

In 2008, there were 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 52.34-46.31% (1.35% to third-parties). There were 10.16 million late votes; Obama led by 59.16-37.48% (3.36% to third-parties).

In 2012, there were 117.46 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (1.59% to third-parties). There were 11.68 million late votes; Obama led by 57.99-38.29% (3.72% to third-parties).

Are late votes representative of the electorate as a whole? One check is to weight (multiply) the late state vote shares by the total state vote.

2008 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 57.4- McCain 38.6- Other 4.0%
The third-party late share is within 0.6% of the 3.36% recorded late share.
Obama had 58.0% in the state exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model (within 0.6% of his weighted late share).

2012 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 54.0- Romney 41.8- Other 4.2%
The third-party late share is within 0.5% of the 3.7% recorded late share.
Obama had 56.1% in the 2-party True Vote Model (within 0.3% of his weighted 2-party late share). Only 31 states were exit polled in 2012. Unadjusted polling data is unavailable.

So what do the third-party numbers indicate? Consider that:
- Obama’s 2008 late vote shares closely match the 2008 state exit polls (within 1%).
- Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares closely match the True Vote Models (within 1%).

Third-party 2008 and 2012 late state vote shares
- closely match the late recorded shares (within 0.5%).
- were more than double the Election Day shares.

Therefore, since the Obama and third party weighted late shares were a close match to the late recorded shares, it is likely that the increase in the third party late share over the Election Day share was caused by a combination of a) vote flipping on Election Day from third parties to McCain and Romney, b) higher third party provisional and absentee voting rates, c) discarding of absentee and provisional Obama ballots which increased third-party late vote shares.

If 50% of the difference in third party late vote shares and Election Day shares was due to vote flipping, then approximately one million (1%) of the votes recorded on Election Day were flipped from the third-parties to McCain and Romney.
``` Election Day and Late Vote shares (weighted by total state vote) 2008 Obama McCain Other Calculated 52.87% 45.62% 1.51% Total Votes 52.34% 46.31% 1.35% Election Day 52.25% 46.51% 1.24% Election Day Weighted 59.15% 37.47% 3.34% Late Recorded 55.80% 40.90% 3.30% Late Weighted 58.00% 40.30% 1.70% Exit Poll & True Vote Model```

``` 2012 Obama Romney Other Calculated 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Total Votes 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% Election Day 50.68% 47.70% 1.62% Election Day Weighted 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Late Recorded 54.00% 41.80% 4.20% Late Weighted 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% True Vote Model (exit polls n/a) Early and Election Day shares required to match the recorded vote (Obama 55% early share based on media estimates) National (votes in millions) .........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early/Election Day.......117.45 91.14% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% 2.27% Late......................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.70% Total....................129.13 100.0% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84% ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting..............40.03 31.00% 55.00% 43.41% 1.59% 11.59% Election Day..............77.42 60.14% 48.00% 50.41% 1.59% -2.41% Late Votes................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.71% Calculated Share.........129.13 100.0% 51.06% 47.17% 1.78% 3.89% Recorded Share........................ 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84% Total Votes (mil)..................... 65.90 60.94 2.30 4.96 True Vote............................. 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% 12.00% 2-party .............................. 56.1% 43.9% Obama Election Day Share ..... 48.0% 52.0% 56.0% Early... Total share 56% 51.37% 53.77% 56.18% 55% 51.06% 53.46% 55.87% 49% 49.20% 51.60% 54.01% ........ Margin 56% 5.82 12.04 18.25 55% 5.02 11.24 17.45 49% 0.22 6.43 12.65 Florida (votes in thousands) ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting............4,245 50.00% 52.00% 47.14% 0.86% 4.86% Election Day............4,063 47.85% 47.60% 51.54% 0.86% -3.94% Late Votes................182 2.15% 52.70% 37.55% 9.75% 15.15% Calculated Share........8,490 100.00% 49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87% Recorded Share........................49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87% True Share............................50.69% 48.26% 1.05% 2.43% Ohio (votes in thousands) ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting............1,395 25.00% 57.05% 41.54% 1.41% 15.51% Election Day............4,132 74.04% 48.40% 50.19% 1.41% -1.79% Late Votes.................54 0.96% 59.38% 33.59% 7.03% 25.80% ```

```Calculated Share........5,581 100.00% 50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81% Recorded Share........................50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81% True Share............................53.97% 44.56% 1.47% 9.42% ```

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

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

2006 Midterms: Regression Generic Poll Trend Model
Projected Democratic share: 56.43%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

1 Comment

Posted by on January 14, 2013 in 2012 Election

## Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Richard Charnin
Jan. 9, 2013
Updated: Nov. 2, 2013

The 2012 True Vote Model determined that Obama won the election by 55-43%, a 15.5 million vote margin. Officially, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2%, a 5.0 million margin. The following early and late vote analysis will confirm that the TVM estimate is close to the truth.

Calculating Obama’s Election Day vote is an algebra problem. We have Obama’s 51.0% share of the (T)otal recorded vote (129 million). The Total vote is the sum of the (E)arly, Election (D)ay and (L)ate votes. We have the late votes recorded after Election Day. We have a good estimate of the number of early votes (31% of the total) and Obama’s share. Since T = E+D+L, we can solve for Obama’s Election Day Vote: D = T-E-L. It turns out that in order to match Obama’s 51.0% share, he must have had only 48% of the recorded Election Day votes. This is highly implausible.

Obama led by just 50.3-48.0% after the first 117.4 million votes were recorded early and on Election Day. But he had a 58-38% margin in the 11.7 million late votes recorded after Election Day.

The same phenomenon occurred in 2008. Quoting from the Huffington Post: “Obama dominated early voting in 2008, building up such big leads in Colorado, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina that he won each state despite losing the Election Day vote, according to voting data compiled by The Associated Press”.

But the article never questioned why the anomaly occurred in the first place or mentioned the fact that Obama won the 10 million late votes recorded after Election Day by 59-37%. The omissions were typical of the mainstream media which never bothers to do an in-depth data analysis.

Total Vote = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote
TV = EV + ED + LV

TV = 129.13 million (Obama led by 51.0-47.2%)
LV = 11.67 million (Obama led by 58.0-38.3%)
EV = 40.0 million (Obama had an estimated 55%; the Early Vote was approximately 31% of TV)

Therefore, solving for the Election Day recorded vote:
ED = TV – LV – EV = 77.46 million = 129.13 – 11.67 – 40.0

We use simple algebra to solve for Obama’s Election Day recorded share. Since we know his total vote, early and late vote, we calculate his Election Day share (X) from the formula:
Total Vote = 65.90 = .51*TV = .55*EV + X*ED + .58*LV
X= (0.51*TV -.55*EV – .58*LV) / ED
X = (0.51*129.13 – .55*40.0 – .58*11.67) / 77.46
X = (65.90 – 22.0 – 6.77) / 77.46
X = 37.13/77.46
X = 47.9%
Romney won the 77.5 million votes cast on Election Day by 50.4-47.9% (third-parties had 1.7%).

Are we to believe that Romney won by 2.5% on Election Day (votes were cast on optical scanners and touchscreens) while Obama won 40 million Early votes (hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots) by 12% and also won the 11.7 million Late recorded votes (absentee and provisional ballots) by 20%? It is very convincing evidence that votes were stolen from Obama on Election Day by rigging the voting machines.

Sensitivity Analysis
The only assumption is that Obama had 55% of the early vote. We know he had 58% of the late vote and therefore must have had 48% on Election Day. Let’s consider other early vote scenarios.

If Obama had 53% of the early vote, then he needed 49% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. Is the 5% spread between his early and late vote plausible? If he had 51%, he needed 50% on Election Day. Is the 7% spread plausible?

The 2012 True Vote Model contains a comprehensive Early vs. Late Vote sensitivity analysis.
1. Obama and Romney shares of early, Election Day and late votes
2. Vote shares required to match the Calculated Total Vote
3. Obama’s Total Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares

Correlation
The 2008 and 2012 recorded total and late votes are highly correlated:
Recorded Vote: 0.983
Late Vote: 0.813
Late Vote percent of recorded: 0.831

2008-2012 Summary Comparison
Note the uniform 2% difference between 2008 and 2012 voting statistics.

1. Total Recorded Vote
Obama had 52.9% of 131.4 million in 2008 and 51.0% of 129.1 in 2012 (1.9% difference).

2. Early Voting
Although the exact numbers are unknown, media reports indicated that Obama led the early voting by substantial margins in both 2008 and 2012. Based on his estimated 2008 and 2012 True Vote Model shares (58% and 55%, respectively), recorded (53%, 51%) and late shares (59%, 58%), then in both 2008 and 2012, his early share (57%, 55%) was 4% better than recorded and 2-3% lower than his late share.

3. Election Day Recorded Vote (including early votes)
Obama had 52.4% in 2008 and 50.3% in 2012 (2.1%)

4. Late Vote

5. True Vote Model
Obama led by 58.0-40.5% in 2008 (1% lower than the late vote) and by 55.2-43.1% in 2012 (3% lower).

6. Weighted State Late Vote / True Vote match
The weighted average 2008 late vote share (57.4-38.6%) closely matched (within 1%) the independent True Vote Model. The 2012 weighted late share (54.0-41.8%) closely matched the TVM (within 1%).

7. 2008 Exit Poll / Late Vote Match
Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted 2008 weighted aggregate of the state exit polls and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll. He had 59.2% of the late vote. Just 31 states had exit polls in 2012. Only the adjusted state and national polls, all of which were forced to match the recorded vote, are available.

Related 2012 Election Analysis Posts:
Election Fraud Model: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/a-model-for-estimating-presidential-election-day-fraud/
Election Fraud Proof: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/2012-election-fraud-a-true-vote-model-proof/

``` ....................Pct Obama Romney Other Early/Elect Day.....91% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% Late.................9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Total..............100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% ```

``` ....................Pct Obama Romney Other Early...............31% 55.00% 44.00% 1.00% Election Day........60% 48.00% 50.00% 2.00% Late.................9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Total..............100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Recorded Calculated.........100% 51.07% 47.09% 1.84% Official...........100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Obama Vote Shares Required to Match 51.0% Recorded Share (Obama had 58.0% of 11.7 million Late Votes) Early Election Day 48% 51.62% 49% 51.10% 50% 50.58% 51% 50.07% 52% 49.55% 53% 49.03% 54% 48.52% 55% 48.00% 56% 47.48% 57% 46.97% Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares ............Obama Election Day Share Early 48.00% 50.00% 52.00% 54.00% 56.00% Share.........Obama Total Share 58% 52.00% 53.20% 54.40% 55.60% 56.80% 57% 51.69% 52.89% 54.09% 55.29% 56.49% 56% 51.38% 52.58% 53.78% 54.98% 56.18% 55% 51.07% 52.27% 53.47% 54.67% 55.87% < True Vote 54% 50.76% 51.96% 53.16% 54.36% 55.56% 53% 50.45% 51.65% 52.85% 54.05% 55.25% 52% 50.14% 51.34% 52.54% 53.74% 54.94% 51% 49.83% 51.03% 52.23% 53.43% 54.63% 50% 49.52% 50.72% 51.92% 53.12% 54.32% 49% 49.21% 50.41% 51.61% 52.81% 54.01% 2012 True Vote Model (2-party) 2008... True Share Alive Cast............Mix Obama Romney Obama Romney Obama. 76,196 58.00% 72,386 68,767.........54.2% 90% 10% 61,890 6,877 McCain 52,995 40.34% 50,346 47,828.........37.7% 7% 93% 3,348 44,480 Other....2,185 01.66% 2,076 1,972...........1.5% 50% 50% 986 986 DNV..........................8,265..........6.5% 59% 41% 4,874 3,390 Total 131,372 100.0% 124,808 126,832.........100% 56.1% 43.9% 71,099 55,733 .........................................Recorded 51.0% 47.2% 64,709 59,881 ..........................................2-party 51.9% 48.1% ........................................Projected 51.6% 48.4% ```

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

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%

2008 Election Model
Obama:
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate (unadjusted): 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
Recorded: 51.0%, 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

1 Comment

Posted by on January 9, 2013 in 2012 Election

## 2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2013
Updated:Sept.7, 2013

This 2012 True Vote Model analysis will show that Obama overcame the systemic, built-in 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won by an official 51.0-47.2%, a 5.0 million margin. But he had an approximate 55-43% True Vote, a 15.5 million margin.

Media Gospel
An objective analysis shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. Media pundits, academics and politicians are quick to accept the recorded result in every election as gospel. But the landslide was denied, just like it was in 2008 and six previous elections.

Exit pollsters always assume that both prior and current elections were fair but that the exit poll samples biased. So they adjust exit poll weights and vote shares to match the sacrosanct recorded vote. They never consider the possibility that their samples were good and the elections were fraudulent.

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls.
In 2012, just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents the calculation of the total aggregate vote share.
Unadjusted 2012 state and national presidential exit polls have not been made available. Furthermore, in another omission, the How Voted in 2008 category was not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll demographic cross tabs displayed on media polling websites.

Is it just a coincidence that the past vote has consistently been a key factor in proving systemic election fraud in every election since 1988? In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the pollsters claimed there were millions of returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive.

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on exit poll transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to see raw precinct data. So why is the NEP hiding this critical information? If election fraud was non-existent, the data would have been released. There can only be one reason: the data would provide absolute proof that elections are fraudulent. But a robust statistical analysis of the red-shift in state and national unadjusted exit polls proves beyond all doubt that election fraud is systemic.

Conspiracy Theory?
Either election fraud is systemic or elections are fair. Those still not convinced by the overwhelming statistical and factual evidence and maintain that election fraud is just a conspiracy theory are welcome to try and refute the following analysis.

If the 2008 election was not fraudulent, then the 2008 recorded vote (Obama had 52.9%, a 9.5 million vote margin) is a reasonable basis for estimating returning voters in 2012. Assuming plausible vote shares applied to returning and new voters results in a close match to Obama’s recorded margin.

On the other hand, if 2008 was fraudulent, then Obama’s 2008 unadjusted state 58.0% exit poll aggregate, 61.0% unadjusted National Exit Poll and 58.0% True Vote Model shares were essentially correct. Using the 58.0% True Vote share as the basis for estimating returning voters in 2012 and applying the same plausible vote shares as above, Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 56.1-43.9% (2-party), a 15.5 million margin.

There are some who believe that Election Fraud is systemic, but was thwarted in 2012 by the Anonymous hack or government oversight. These factors may have prevented some late vote-rigging. But the True Vote Model and Late Vote analysis results were consistent with 2008. Vote switching algorithms were in effect on Election Day in most states. Why should 2012 have been any different?

Smoking Gun: The Past Vote
All 2012 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were posed to 25,000 respondents, but the most important one is missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? The past vote question has always been asked in prior exit polls. In at least four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008), the returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted NEP was mathematically (and physically) impossible. Each poll indicated that there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a clear indication of a fraudulent vote count.

The 2012 True Vote Model rectifies the NEP return voter anomaly by calculating feasible estimates of returning voters from the prior election.

Sensitivity Analysis
Pollsters and pundits and academics never do a sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios. Is it because they have never considered this powerful modeling tool? Or is it because they know it would produce results that they would rather not talk about?

The 2012 True Vote Model Base Case assumptions were as follows:
1. Obama won the 2008 True Vote: 58%-40.3%
2. Obama and McCain 2008 voters turned out at a 95% rate in 2012
3. Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters and 7% of McCain
Obama had a 56.1% (two-party) True Vote share and won by 15.5 million votes.

Romney needed to win 18% of returning Obama voters and 93% of returning McCain voters in order to match the recorded share (given the 2008 voter turnout assumption). In other words, there had to be an implausible 11% net defection of Obama voters to Romney.

Given the base case vote share assumptions, Romney needed an implausibly low 72% turnout of Obama 2008 voters and 95% turnout of McCain voters in order to match the recorded vote.

2008 National Exit Poll
To put the 2012 True Vote Model base case assumptions in context, let’s review the 2008 National Exit Poll. Obama had 89% of returning Kerry voters, 17% of returning Bush voters and 72% of those who did not vote in 2004. But to force a match to the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%), the poll indicated that 46% (60.3 million) of the 2008 electorate were returning Bush voters and just 37% (48.6 million) were returning Kerry voters. This is an impossibility; it implies that 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned to vote in 2008.

On the other hand, assuming Kerry won the True Vote by 53.7-45.3%, the returning 2004 voter mix is a feasible Kerry 47.5/Bush 40.0% and Obama won the True Vote by 58.0-40.3%.

The Late Vote – a True Vote Confirmation
The recurring pattern of the Democratic presidential late vote share exceeding the Election Day share by approximately 7% is additional confirmation of fraud. In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48.1% in the 117.4 million votes recorded on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% margin in the final 11.7 million late recorded votes (129.1 million total). Nearly half of his total margin came from late votes.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama won the weighted aggregate state late vote by 57.4-38.6%, within 1% of the weighted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the late vote by 54.0-41.8%. The 12.2% margin exactly matched the 2-party True Vote Model (56.1-43.9%). The fact that the weighted late shares matched the True Vote Model in both 2008 and 2012 is compelling evidence that the national late vote is representative of the national electorate.

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day shares.

Red Shift
There was an overwhelmingly one-sided exit poll red-shift to the Republicans in all presidential elections since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The True Vote Model indicates a 53-41% margin, yet they won the official recorded vote by just 48-46%. The final published exit polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water.

The 2012 National Exit Poll Party-ID category indicates a 39D-32R-29I split. Was the unadjusted Democratic share lowered to force a match to the recorded vote? Let’s consider the 2004 and 2008 elections.

The 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a 45.5D-27.3R-27.2I Party-ID split. It was adjusted to 39/32/29 to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, the Democrats led the pre-election Party ID polling by 38-35-27. The split was changed to 37-37-26 in the adjusted NEP to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, Bush had a 48% average approval rating in 11 pre-election polls and 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate. The rating was adjusted to 53% in the NEP to match the recorded vote.

``` 2012 True Vote Model Voted...2008 2012 2-party vote shares 2008 Implied Votes Mix Obama Romney DNV.......... 10.4 8.20% 59.0% 41.0% Obama...58.0% 67.6 53.3% 90.0% 7.00% McCain..40.4% 46.9 37.0% 7.00% 93.0% Other...1.60% 1.90 1.50% 50.0% 50.0% ```

``` Total...100% 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9% Votes..............126.8 71.1 55.7 2012 Sensitivity Analysis ....Pct of returning Obama .... 82.5% 90.0% 92.0% %McCain .....Obama 2-party Share 10% 53.1% 57.2% 58.3% 7% 51.9% 56.1% 57.1% 4% 50.8% 54.9% 56.0% ....... Margin 10% 7.8 18.2 21.0 7% 5.0 15.4 18.1 4% 2.1 12.5 15.3 Sensitivity Analysis I: 2008 WAS FRAUDULENT Obama had 58.0% (True Vote) Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters Obama pct of returning Obama 2008 voters Pct EV Share Margin 90% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote 88% 371 54.97% 12,614 86% 333 53.89% 9,864 84% 318 52.80% 7,113 82% 315 51.72% 4,362 Recorded b)Obama 90% of returning Obama Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate Rate EV Share Margin 95% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote 90% 371 55.05% 12,807 85% 333 53.95% 10,032 80% 318 52.77% 7,018 77% 318 52.00% 5,083 Recorded Sensitivity Analysis II: 2008 WAS NOT FRAUDULENT Obama had 52.9% (recorded) Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters Obama pct of returning 2008 Obama voters Pct EV Share Margin 91% 332 52.16% 5,491 Recorded 90% 303 51.67% 4,238 88% 285 50.68% 1,730 86% 272 49.69% -777 84% 253 48.71% -3,285 b)Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate Rate EV Share Margin 95% 303 51.67% 4,238 Recorded 93% 303 51.25% 3,177 91% 285 50.82% 2,087 89% 285 50.38% 964 87% 272 49.92% -191 Late Vote Confirms the True Vote Year 2pty Obama Repub Other Margin 2008 59.8 57.4 38.6 4.0 18.8 late 2008 59.0 58.0 40.3 1.7 17.7 true 2012 56.4 54.0 41.8 4.2 12.2 late 2012 56.1 55.0 43.0 2.0 12.0 true Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll 2004 Sample Kerry Bush Other Total 13,660 7,064 6,414 182 Share 100.0% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3% Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll 2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other DNV 23,116 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0% Gore 48,248 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0% Bush 49,670 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0% Other 4,703 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0% Total 125.7 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3% Votes...... 125.7 65.1 58.8 1.8 Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) 2008 Sample Obama McCain Other Total 17.836 10,873 6,641 322 Share 100.0% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8% 2008 Party ID 2008 Sample Dem Rep Other Total 17,774 8,096 4,851 4,827 Share 100.0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.2% Final 2008 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote) Voted...2004 2008 2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other DNV........... 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0% Kerry...42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0% Bush....52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0% Other...4.60% 5.30 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0% Total...100% 131.5 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54% Votes............. 131.5 69.50 59.95 2.02 How Voted in 2004 Voted Kerry Bush Other DNV Total 2004....1,815 1,614 188 561 4,178 Share...43.5% 38.6% 4.5% 13.4% 100% 2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll Voted...2004 2008 2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other DNV........... 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0% Kerry...50.2% 57.1 43.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0% Bush... 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0% Other...5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0% Total...100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6% Votes.............. 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2 2008 True Vote Model (Returning voters based on 2004 True Vote) Voted...2004 2008 2004 True Votes Mix Obama McCain Other DNV.......... 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0% Kerry...53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0% Bush....45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0% Other...1.00% 1.16 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0% ```

```Total...100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6% Votes............. 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1 ```

____________________________________________________________________

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

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

Posted by on January 2, 2013 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models

## A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 1, 2013

Given 1) early voting (mail-in or hand-delivered paper ballots) and 2) late vote (absentees, provisional ballots) and 3) the total recorded vote, what is the Election Day vote share required to match the recorded vote?

This 2012 election fraud analysis shows that Obama’s Election Day vote share was 3% lower than his total recorded share (a 6% discrepancy in margin). It is a strong indicator that votes were stolen on Election Day. Obama’s late vote share was 10% higher than his Election Day share.

In 2012, there were 11.677 million late recorded votes (9.0% of the total). The late vote for each state is the difference between the current and Election Day votes. Obama had 60.2% of the two-party late vote and 51.96% of the total two-party vote.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama’s weighted aggregate state late vote was 57-39%, just 1% lower than the weighted exit polls and the True Vote. In 2012, it was 54-42%, closely matching the 56% two-party True Vote model share.

In 2008, approximately 30% of total votes were cast early. Early vote rates for each state were set to the 2008 rate. Early vote shares were based on information supplied to the media. If the early vote estimate was not available, the assumption is that Obama did 2-3% lower in early voting than late.

Obama’s True Vote margin is estimated to be 15.7 million (56.1-43.9%).

Total Votes Recorded = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote

In order to determine the Election Day vote, a simple trial and error (goal-seeking) procedure was used by adjusting the Election Day share until the total share matched the recorded vote. This is analogous to the exit pollsters stated procedure of adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote in each demographic cross tab by changing weights and/or vote shares. The National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote in a number of elections by adjusting actual exit poll results using mathematically impossible weightings (millions more returning voters from the previous election than were alive to vote in the current election).

In this analysis, we use actual early and late recorded vote data to determine the Election Day 2-party share required to match the total recorded vote. Unlike the media, the “goal-seek” is to determine the fraud component, not ignore it.

On Election Day, Votes cast on optical scanners and DREs are vulnerable to miscounts on the central tabulators.

Florida
Percent of total vote: Early 52%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (49.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Ohio
Percent of total vote: Early 25%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.4%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Iowa
Percent of total vote: Early 36%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (51.1%), Romney needed 70% on Election Day.

North Carolina (zero late vote?)
Percent of total vote: Early 60%; Late 0%
To match his 2-party share (47.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

California
Percent of total vote: Early 45%; Late 27%
To match his 2-party share (38.1%), Romney needed 46% on Election Day.

Arizona
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 29%
To match his 2-party share (54.9%), Romney needed 60% on Election Day.

Virginia
Percent of total vote: Early 14%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.0%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

New Mexico
Percent of total vote: Early 62%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (45.1%), Romney needed 48% on Election Day.

Georgia
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 1%
To match his 2-party share (53.1%), Romney needed 58% on Election Day.

National Vote – forced to match the recorded share
How Voted (2-party)………….Votes Pct Obama Romney
Early voting (paper)…………40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0%
Election Day…………………75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0%
Late Votes (paper)…………..11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%

Recorded Share……….126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%

…….. Obama Election Day %
…….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early Obama Share
56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4%
55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1%
49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1%
Margin
56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2
55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4
49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5

Posted by on December 7, 2012 in 2012 Election, Uncategorized

## Comparing 2012 to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls

Comparing 2012 to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls

Richard Charnin
Dec.13, 2012

This is an update to the post Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16-million votes.

A table of 2012 late and total votes and corresponding 2008 votes and unadjusted exit polls has been added to the 2012 model. It reveals a pattern of intriguing similarities which strengthen the case that the 4-5% systemic election fraud factor reduced Obama’s True Vote margin by approximately 10-12 million.

The 2008 Election Model projected a 53.1% vote share for Obama and 365.3 expected EV; he had 52.9% and 365 EV. The model utilized Likely Voter (LV) polls which understated Obama’s True Vote share.

Anticipating the systemic 5% fraud factor, the 2012 True Vote Forecast Model included two projections: 1) the recorded vote based on Likely Voter polls (Obama had 51.6%) and 2) the True Vote based on estimates of returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares of returning and new voters. The recorded vote projection exactly matched Obama’s 332 EV. In the True Vote Model, he had 55.2% and 380 EV.

In 2008, Obama had 52.3% on Election Day and 52.87% of the total 131.1 million recorded votes. He had 59.2% of 10.16 million late votes. In 2012, Obama had 50.34% on Election Day and 51.03% of the total 129.13 million recorded votes. He had 58.0% of 11.68 million late votes. The 2.0% differential between Obama’s 2012 and 2008 late vote shares matches the spread between his 51.03% total share and his 52.87% share in 2008.

In 2008, Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) and 61.0% in the National Exit Poll (17,836). He also had 58.0% in the True Vote Model If the exit polls and the True Vote Model are accurate, then the 10.16 million Late Votes accurately represented the 2008 electorate. Obama’s 59.2% late vote share was right in the middle of the 58-61% exit poll range. In 2012, there were just 31 state exit polls. The unadjusted state and national polls have not been released.

Obama had a 56.1% two-party share in the 2012 post-election True Vote Model. It is likely that the 5% Fraud Factor resulted in his 51.0% recorded share.

Was the Late Vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama won the weighted aggregate Late Vote by 57-39%, the same 18% margin as the unadjusted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the weighted Late Vote by 54-42%; the 12% margin matched the 56-44% two-party True Vote Model.

The 2012 unadjusted exit polls are unavailable. But it is reasonable to assume that Obama would have 56% in the aggregate poll (2% below his 2008 aggregate share) given the 2% difference between Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares.

2008/2012 correlation:
Late Vote: 0.84
Recorded Vote: 0.98
2008 Late Vote/Exit Poll: 0.74
Late % of Total Vote: 0.83

Florida
2008: 405,000 late votes, Obama 50.9% recorded, 51.6% late, 52.1% exit poll
2012: 166,000 late votes, 49.9-49.3% recorded on Election day;
57.8-41.2-1.0% late
More than 200,000 Florida voters were discouraged by long lines and left without voting – most were for Obama.

Ohio
2008: 500,000 late votes, 51.4% recorded, 54.0% late, 54.1% exit poll
2012: 228,000 late votes, 50.3-48.3% recorded on Election Day;
57.1-31.8-11.1% late

Virginia
2008: 249,000 late votes, 52.6% recorded, 65.4% late, 62.5% exit poll
2012: 160,000 late votes, 50.6-47.8% recorded on Election Day;
64.7-34.2-1.1% late

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

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

1 Comment

Posted by on November 30, 2012 in 2012 Election

## Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes

Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes

Richard Charnin
Dec. 21, 2012
Updated Jan. 1, 2013

In 2012, Obama had to once again overcome the persistent 4-5% fraud factor. In each of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, Democratic Late Votes recorded after Election Day have closely matched the unadjusted state and national exit polls – and the True Vote Model.

Why would anyone expect that 2012 would be any different? This analysis indicates that Obama did much better than his recorded 51.03-47.19% margin (4.97 million votes) and won by nearly 16 million votes. So what else is new?

This analysis does not include the millions of voters who were disenfranchised and never voted. In Florida, 49,000 voters got tired of waiting on lines for eight hours and went home. Had they voted, Obama would have won by more than 20 million votes.

In 2012, there were 129.132 million votes, of which 11.677 million were recorded after Election Day. Obama won these late votes by 58.0-38.3%, a 7.7% increase over his 50.3% Election Day share.

The 2008 late vote result was similar. Obama had 52.87% of 131.37 million total votes. He had 52.3% of 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day, but won 59.2% of 10.2 million late votes, a 6.8% increase over his Election Day share.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

Pollsters and pundits and academics never do a sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios. Is it because they have never been exposed to this critical analytical modeling tool? Or is it that using it would raise issues that they would rather not talk about?

In the True Vote Model, Obama won all plausible scenarios.

Base case assumptions
1. Obama had a 58% vote share in 2008
This is his unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share (82,388 respondents) and True Vote Model. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%.
2. Equal 95% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters.
3. Obama had 90% of Obama and 7% of returning McCain voters.
(net 3% defection of returning Obama voters to Romney)
In 2008, Obama had 89% of returning Kerry and 17% of Bush voters.
4. Obama had 59% of new voters.
In 2008, Obama had 73% (two-party) of new voters.
Obama wins by 15.8 million votes with a 56.1% (two-party) share.

Implausible: Match to the Recorded vote

I. Vote shares required to match
Obama had 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning McCain
(net 11% defection advantage to Romney)
Obama has 51.8% (2-party) and wins by 4.8 million votes.

II. Returning voters required to match
Voter turnout: 71% of Obama voters and 95% of McCain voters
Obama has 51.9% (two-party) and wins by 5.0 million votes.

Pundits, Naysayers and the Myth of Fair Elections

Just 31 states were exit polled in 2012. But unadjusted state and national polls are not available. As always, only the final adjusted state and national exit polls are displayed on mainstream media websites. As always, all exit poll category cross tabs were forced to match the recorded vote. There has never been any indication on the part of the exit pollsters that this practice will ever change.

The “How Voted in 2008″ category is not included. Perhaps because it has proven to be a very useful tool in proving election fraud. In each of the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections, in order for the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it was forced to assume that there were millions more returning Bush phantom voters from the previous election than were still living.

It must have been written in stone: There is no such thing as Election Fraud. It is just a conspiracy theory. All elections are squeaky clean. The only poll that counts is the one held on Election Day. The recorded vote is the same as the True Vote. There is no justification in responding to analyst requests to view raw precinct exit poll/recorded vote data.

The usual suspects may try to thrash this analysis and call it another “conspiracy theory”. Or they will avoid discussing it. But 2012 confirms that only systemic election fraud could be the cause of the massive red-shift in the 1988-2008 Democratic unadjusted state and national exit polls (52-42%) and True Vote Model (53-41%) to the recorded 48-46%. The probability of the 8% differential is 1 in trillions. In the six elections, there were approximately 90,000 National Exit Poll respondents and 370,000 state exit poll respondents.

Pundits and naysayers are quick to accept the recorded result as gospel. They will perpetuate the myth of fair elections and point to Obama’s solid 5 million vote margin. But once again, a Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud.

Based on the historical record, late votes recorded after Election Day closely matched the unadjusted state exit polls. But exit poll naysayers cannot use the bogus faith-based canard of a systemic built-in differential exit poll response; Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans or that exit poll respondents misrepresented their vote. They cannot use those arguments because the analysis is based on recorded votes, not exit polls. They will have to come up with an explanation to refute the persistent pattern of late recorded votes breaking sharply to the Democrat.

Late Vote vs. Election Day Share

The late vote timeline shows that Obama’s lead was steadily increasing. The consistent incremental late vote share is very telling. But the day to day changes in his total share do not tell the full story. One must consider the difference between Total Late Vote and Election Day shares.

If Late Votes are within 3% of the True Vote, it is a confirmation of systematic election fraud. The question needs to be asked: Why do late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share?

2000: 102.6 million votes on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%.

2004: 116.7 million votes on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%.

2008: 121.0 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%.
Obama won 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5% He won the 131 million recorded votes by 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin. But he did much better in the unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61-37% (17,836 respondents, a 31 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%, a 23 million margin. Obama had an identical 58.0% in the True Vote Model, exactly matching and confirming the state exit polls.

2012: 117.456 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 50.3-48.1%. He won the 129.132 million total recorded vote by 3.8% (51.0-47.2%), a 4.9 million margin. But he won the 11.677 million late votes by nearly 20% (58.0-38.3%).

In addition, Obama had a 56.1% True Vote (2-party) vs. 52.0% recorded. When the late state vote shares are weighted by total votes cast, Obama’s 56.3% (2-party) share is close to his 56.1% True Vote. This is a strong indicator that late votes are at least fairly representative of the total electorate.

Unadjusted 2012 state and national exit polls are not, and never will be, available. The mainstream media does not want you to know the truth about this, or any other, election.

Obama vote margin

Total:51.03-47.19% (3.84% margin; 129.132 million votes);51.96% 2-party
Election Day: 50.34-48.07% (2.27%; 117.456); 51.15% 2-party
Late vote: 57.99-38.29% (19.70%; 11.677); 60.23% 2-party
Weighted late vote: 53.97-41.83% (12.14%); 56.33% 2-party
True Vote Model: 56.11-43.89% (12.22%); 2-party)

The Early Vote
In 2008, the lowest exit poll discrepancies were in the states that had the highest percentage of early voting on paper ballots. Obama had 61% in the 2008 National Exit Poll, 58% in the aggregate of the state exit polls. The assumption is that Obama did approximately 3% better in late absentee and provisional ballots than he did in early voting.

Obama’s 56.1% True Vote (no fraud) calculation assumes he had 56% on Election Day, matching his early voting share. The Late Vote share is known exactly.

If the election was fraud-free, it is unlikely that Obama’s Election Day margin would differ from his early vote margin by more than 2%. But who can believe the unverifiable machine vote counts on Election Day?

In 2008, states with the highest percentage of early votes (WA, OR, CO, etc.) had the lowest exit poll discrepancies – and were strong Obama states. There were 131.3 million recorded votes of which 40.6 million (30.6%) were cast early on hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots. The mail-in ballots accounted for 31.7% of all early votes.

Calculating the Election Day Vote

The only unknown component is Obama’s early vote share. If we had this statistic, his Election Day share is a simple calculation. Early vote total estimates gave Obama 55% in selected battleground states. He had 60.2% of the late 2-party recorded vote and 52.0% of the total 2-party recorded vote. Assuming he had 55% of early voters, then Romney needed 51% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. This is implausible and clearly indicates fraud.

This table determines the election day vote shares required to match the recorded vote given the early, late and total vote shares.

How Voted……. Votes Pct Obama Romney
Early voting…. 40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0%
Election Day…. 75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0%
Late Votes…… 11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%

Recorded…….. 126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%

Sensitivity Analysis

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day shares.

…….. Obama Election Day %
…….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early…. Obama Share
56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4%
55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1% < True Vote
49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1%
……. Margin
56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2
55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4 < True Vote
49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5

2012 Late Vote Timeline
On……Obama led by…
Nov. 8 50.34-48.07% of 117.45 million recorded votes
Nov. 9 50.43-47.97% of 119.58 (2.13 late)
Nov.10 50.51-47.87% of 122.20 (4.75 late)
Nov.11 50.52-47.86% of 122.58 (5.13 late)
Nov.13 50.55-47.82% of 122.94 (5.49 late)
Nov.14 50.61-47.76% of 123.73 (6.27 late)
Nov.16 50.66-47.69% of 124.69 (7.24 late)
Nov.20 50.73-47.61% of 125.53 (8.07 late)
Nov.25 50.80-47.50% of 126.87 (9.41 late)
Nov.28 50.88-47.38% of 127.74 (10.29 late)
Nov.29 50.90-47.36% of 127.87 (10.42 late)
Dec.05 50.94-47.31% of 128.36 (10.90 late)
Dec.21 50.96-47.28% of 128.74 (11.28 late)
Final
Dec.31 51.03-47.19% of 129.13 (11.68 late)

Election Day and Late vote shares
* indicates suspicious anomaly
href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012″>wikipedia.org United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Total………..50.3% 58.0% 11,677

Alabama………39% 37% 312 *
Arizona………43% 47% 666 *
Arkansas……..37% 36% 25
California……59% 63% 3,609 *
Connecticut…..51% 59% 1,307 *
Delaware……..59% 80% 0
D. C…………91% 90% 50
Florida………50% 53% 182 *
Georgia………45% 49% 47 *
Hawaii……….71% 72% 0
Idaho………..32% 33% 45
Illinois……..57% 65% 130 *
Indiana………44% 49% 88 *
Iowa…………52% 63% 24 *
Kansas……….38% 37% 39
Kentucky……..38% 29% 117 *
Louisiana…….58% 41% 1
Maine………..56% 57% 64
Maryland……..62% 65% 236 *
Massachusetts…61% 55% 132 *
Michigan……..53% 71% 222 *
Minnesota…….53% 79% 6
Mississippi…..44% 46% 85
Missouri……..44% 71% 12
Montana………42% 40% 49
New Hampshire…52% 35% 10
New Jersey……58% 61% 327 *
New Mexico……53% 60% 13
New York……..63% 68% 902 *
North Carolina..48% 48% -4 *
North Dakota….39% 15% 3
Ohio…………50% 59% 229 *
Oklahoma……..33% 32% 2
Oregon……….53% 58% 330
Pennsylvania….52% 43% 292 *
Rhode Island….63% 60% 29
South Carolina..44% 47% 111 *
South Dakota….40% 44% 0
Tennessee…….39% 40% 8
Texas………..41% 43% 53
Utah…………25% 23% 106
Vermont………67% 65% 61
Virginia……..51% 65% 160 *
Washington……55% 57% 1,217
West Virginia…36% 36% 29
Wisconsin…….53% 48% 15 *
Wyoming………28% 25% 3

___________________________________________________________________

State and National Exit Polls

The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted state exit polls. The exit poll naysayers cannot use the worn out bogus claim that a) late poll “respondents” misrepresent how they voted and b) there is a differential response: Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans.

But all we have is the 2012 National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote. It shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. All demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote.

The National Exit Poll crosstabs and corresponding True Vote adjustments show that the Democrats had a 39-32% Party-ID advantage. In 2004, the Final NEP 37-37 split did not agree with the pre-election survey 38-35%.

Similarly, Bush’s 53% approval rating did not match the unadjusted exit poll 50% or the 11 pre-election poll 48% average. The bogus 53% National Exit Poll approval had the effect of inflating Bush’s total share to match the recorded vote.

In 2012, about 80 questions were asked of over 25,000 exit poll respondents. But the most important crosstab was missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? Maybe it’s because it resulted in an impossible returning voter mix in each of the 1988,1992,2004 and 2008 elections.

That’s why the True Vote Model always determines a feasible mix of returning voters based on prior election votes cast – and the bogus adjusted Final Exit Poll that is forced to match the recorded vote is replaced by the True Vote – which reflects True Voter Intent.

Early and Late Vote Questions

If the Late Votes are representative of the total vote, they are another confirmation of systematic election fraud.

- Why would the late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share?

- Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive to steal the late recorded votes?

- Could it be that early and late votes match the unadjusted exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model because they are cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee) and not on computers?

- Could it be that the bulk of late votes are in Democratic strongholds? That may account for some of the discrepancy, but not all. In 2012, Obama had a 54.0-41.8% margin when the late state vote shares were weighted by the total state vote (56.3% of the 2-party vote) – very close to the 56.1% True Vote Model.

Consider…
1) Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans.
2) There is no incentive to miscount votes after the election.
3) Democratic late vote shares always far exceed Election Day shares. This is indicative of a structural phenomenon.
4) Blacks, Hispanics and Asians votes increased for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined, there were fewer white voters, increasing Obama’s total share.
5) When late shares are weighted by total state votes, Obama’s 14.8% margin far exceeds his 2.3% Election Day margin.

Democratic late vote discrepancies from Election Day shares may not be proof of systemic election fraud by itself. But fraud has already been proved; late votes are a strong confirmation. Given the anomalies, there is no reason why an analysis of early and late recorded votes are ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Without an accurate composition of early/late vote demographics, we cannot know to what degree they are representative of the electorate as a whole.

This analysis has indicated why Obama would be expected to do better in early and late voting than on Election Day. The question is: How much better?
_______________________________________________________________________

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

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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

Posted by on November 26, 2012 in 2012 Election

## The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?

The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?

Richard Charnin
Updated: Jan.7, 2013

The late vote timeline included in the 2012 True Vote Model shows that Obama’s lead increased dramatically after Election Day. He won the 11.7 million late votes recorded after Election Day by 58.0-38.3%, but led the first 117.4 million recorded by just 50.3-48.1%. Once again, as in every election since 2000, the Democratic late vote share exceeded the Election Day share by a substantial margin. What is the cause of this anomaly? Some possible reasons are given below.

Dave Leip’s US Election Atlas and Wikipedia provided daily state vote updates.

Obama vote share margins:
Election Day: 50.3-48.1% (2.2% of 117.45 million votes).
Late vote 58.0-38.3 (19.7% of 11.68 million votes).
Total vote: 51.03-47.19% (3.8% of 129.13 million votes.
Weighted late vote: 54.0%-41.8% (12.2%).
(Late state vote shares are weighted by total votes cast)

Obama 2-party shares and margins:
51.2-48.8% Election Day Recorded share (2.4%)
56.3-43.7% Late Vote share weighted by total recorded vote (12.6%)
52.0-48.0% Total vote (4.O%)
60.2-39.8% Unweighted Late Vote share (20.4%)
56.1-43.9% True Vote Model (12.2%)

2012 Late Vote Timeline
On……Obama led by…
Nov. 8 50.34-48.07% of 117.45 million recorded votes
Nov. 9 50.43-47.97% of 119.58 (2.13 late)
Nov.10 50.51-47.87% of 122.20 (4.75 late)
Nov.11 50.52-47.86% of 122.58 (5.13 late)
Nov.13 50.55-47.82% of 122.94 (5.49 late)
Nov.14 50.61-47.76% of 123.73 (6.27 late)
Nov.16 50.66-47.69% of 124.69 (7.24 late)
Nov.20 50.73-47.61% of 125.53 (8.07 late)
Nov.25 50.80-47.50% of 126.87 (9.41 late)
Nov.28 50.88-47.38% of 127.74 (10.29 late)
Nov.29 50.90-47.36% of 127.87 (10.42 late)
Dec.05 50.94-47.31% of 128.36 (10.90 late)
Dec.21 50.96-47.28% of 128.74 (11.28 late)
Final
Dec.31 51.03-47.19% of 129.13 (11.68 late)

Election Day and Late vote shares
* indicates suspicious anomaly
Total………..50.3% 58.0% 11,677

Alabama………39% 37% 312 *
Arizona………43% 47% 666 *
Arkansas……..37% 36% 25
California……59% 63% 3,609 *
Connecticut…..51% 59% 1,307 *
Delaware……..59% 80% 0
D. C…………91% 90% 50
Florida………50% 53% 182 *
Georgia………45% 49% 47 *
Hawaii……….71% 72% 0
Idaho………..32% 33% 45
Illinois……..57% 65% 130 *
Indiana………44% 49% 88 *
Iowa…………52% 63% 24 *
Kansas……….38% 37% 39
Kentucky……..38% 29% 117 *
Louisiana…….58% 41% 1
Maine………..56% 57% 64
Maryland……..62% 65% 236 *
Massachusetts…61% 55% 132 *
Michigan……..53% 71% 222 *
Minnesota…….53% 79% 6
Mississippi…..44% 46% 85
Missouri……..44% 71% 12
Montana………42% 40% 49
New Hampshire…52% 35% 10
New Jersey……58% 61% 327 *
New Mexico……53% 60% 13
New York……..63% 68% 902 *
North Carolina..48% 48% -4 *
North Dakota….39% 15% 3
Ohio…………50% 59% 229 *
Oklahoma……..33% 32% 2
Oregon……….53% 58% 330
Pennsylvania….52% 43% 292 *
Rhode Island….63% 60% 29
South Carolina..44% 47% 111 *
South Dakota….40% 44% 0
Tennessee…….39% 40% 8
Texas………..41% 43% 53
Utah…………25% 23% 106
Vermont………67% 65% 61
Virginia……..51% 65% 160 *
Washington……55% 57% 1,217
West Virginia…36% 36% 29
Wisconsin…….53% 48% 15 *
Wyoming………28% 25% 3

No one knows what the unadjusted exit polls look like in 2012. And 19 states were not even exit polled. Maybe we’ll get to see the polls a year from now – when all talk of 2012 election fraud has died down.

The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted state exit polls. In 2008, 10 million late votes matched the polls. Unlike an exit poll survey, however, naysayers cannot use the worn out bogus claims that a) late poll “respondents” are lying about how they voted and b) there is a differential response: Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans.

But all we have is the National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote and shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. All demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were asked of over 25,000 exit poll respondents, but the most important was missing: Who did you vote for in 2008: Obama, McCain or Other?

The past vote question has always been asked in prior exit polls. It is used as the basis for the True Vote Model to measure prior election voter turnout and vote shares in the current election. The returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted Final National Exit Poll has been determined to be impossible in at least four presidential elections – a clear indicator of a fraudulent vote count.

As in every presidential election since 1988, the Democrat Obama did much better than the recorded vote. If the Late Votes are representative of the total vote, they are another confirmation of systematic election fraud. Why would the late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share?

In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, late votes recorded after Election Day showed a dramatic increase in Democratic vote shares. The late votes closely matched the state and national exit polls and the True Vote Model. The anomaly is also apparently occurring in 2012.

2000: 102.6 million votes recorded on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%.

2004: 116.7 million votes recorded on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%.

2008: 121 million votes recorded on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%.
Obama won 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5%. He won the 131 million recorded votes by 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin. But he did much better in the unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61-37% (17,836 respondents, a 31 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%, a 23 million margin. Obama had an identical 58.0% in the True Vote Model, exactly matching and confirming the state exit polls.

But this is the kicker: the exit polls and True Vote Model vote shares closely matched the 10 million late recorded votes!

To summarize Obama in 2008:
1- National Exit poll (17,836 respondents): 61.0%
2- State exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents): 58.0%
3- True Vote Model: 58.0%
4- Late vote (10.2 million): 59.2%
5- Recorded vote: 52.9%

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.45 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes? Obama won 63% of them.

- Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive on the part of the perennial vote thieves to continue switching late votes? Plausible.
- Could it be that the late votes are paper ballots (provisionals, absentees) and not from DREs? Absolutely.
- Could it be that the late votes are coming in from Democratic strongholds? Maybe some, but surely not all.

State vote totals show that the late votes are a reasonable representation of the total electorate. The deviation between the Late and Election Day recorded votes is less than 3% in 20 states. There are 8 in which the deviation exceeds 10% (4 for Obama and 4 for Romney). There are currently 12 with fewer than 3,000 late votes. View the data tables, bar chart and frequency chart in the 2012 Forecasting model.

The consistent Democratic late vote share discrepancies from the Election Day shares are not proof of fraud. But there is no reason why the phenomenon is ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Obviously, without having an accurate composition of the late vote demographics we cannot make a definitive judgment as to whether they are representative of the total electorate. But there are a number of reasons why Obama would be expected to do better in the late vote. The only question is how much better?

1)Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans. Therefore we would expect a higher Democratic share than on Election Day because voting machines are rigged. Check.

2)There is no incentive to fix the votes after the election. Check.

3)The increase in Democratic late vote share has occurred in each election since 2000, enforcing the case that it is a structural phenomenon. Check.

4)In 2008, Obama had a 59% share compared to 52% on Election Day. There were 10 million late uncounted votes or 7.8% of 131 million recorded. In 2004, there were 5 million late votes of 122 million (4%). In 2000, 3 million of 105 million (3%). The late vote percentage is rising faster than the increase in minority voters. Check.

5) The average late vote margin exceeded the recorded margin by 11%.
```Margins: State Exit Poll aggregate,National Exit Poll,Late Vote share,Recorded share,Deviation 2000 5. 2. 10 0.5 9.5 2004 4. 5. 8. -2.4 10.4 2008 18 24 20 7.3 13.6 2012 na na 14 2.7 11.3 ```

6)Blacks and Hispanics voted at a higher rate for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined by 7 million, there were fewer white voters, thus increasing Obama’s total share. Approximately 13% of 2012 voters were black and 10% Latino. Check.

7) Obama’s 2-party late vote shares far exceed his Election Day shares (see above).

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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