My Website
This site contains an exaustive set of links to many of my original posts and models dating back to 2004. Also included are links to important articles from some of the most influential election analysts and activists:
http://richardcharnin.com/
The website links to many of the posts on this blog.
The media, academics, political scientists and politicians never discuss the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that election fraud is systemic. That is why this site exists. It is a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polling models and post-election True Vote Models. Final national and state exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.
My book, Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll, is a detailed analysis which proves that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.
In the 1968-2008 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the recorded vote by a 49-45% margin. The Recursive National True Vote Model indicates that the Democrats actually won by 49-45%. In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit polls 51.6-41.8%. Check out the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference.
In July 2004 I began posting weekly 2004 Election Model projections based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.
The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters – but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. 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.
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 recorded electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share, a 9.5 million margin. But the forecast was too conservative. It was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Final registered voter (RV) polls had 13% – before undecided voters were allocated. The landslide was denied.
As always, the Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible numbers and required 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. There were more returning Bush 2004 voters than were living in 2008. Bush won the recorded vote by just 3.0 million. Kerry won the state exit polls by 52-47%. Assuming Kerry’s 5% exit poll margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry voters than Bush voters – a 19 million difference. The Final 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 was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama actually won by over 22 million votes and had 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).
The 2010 House, Senate and Governor elections were likely stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model has worksheets for Senate, Governor, 2011 Supreme Court and Recall elections.
John Truesdale
November 9, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Read your most recent post via OpEd News and got here from there. Fascinating, but not enough small words for getting my GOPer friends to read and understand. What the heck, I can see their responses in my mind’s eye: LIES.
Where did the number on the 2K FL presidential race come from? I had a number of 50K that stuck in my mind from a study that I can’t remember who did or who sponsored it. I’m thinking some of the papers/media.
Lotta good that did after that 5-4 vote.
You know that Bush was going to thank all those who voted for him for PResident, but they took it out. Yeah, cooler heads prevailed. They didn’t want him thanking Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, etc, etc.
richardcharnin
November 9, 2010 at 11:09 pm
I realize that I’m not the easiest read. Tell your GOP friends that not only do they need to learn the facts, they need to do the math. If they don’t want to do the work they are just blowing smoke.
Here is the Florida 2000 link. NORC did the study for the media. But the 180,000 spoiled ballots were mostly for Gore (110,000 were deiberatley overpunched):
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
Maryanne
November 9, 2010 at 10:42 pm
And in Florida, polling places were changed for this election. A family I know had to drive 25 miles to get to their voting location, passing other polling places on the way. Is it just me, or does that seem like a problem?
richardcharnin
November 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Of course it’s a problem if you have to go so far out of the way.
I live in Democratic Palm Beach County, so they make sure to have lots of polling places.
Laura Stein
January 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm
I’ve been following election integrity issues since the 2000 debacle, when I found blackboxvoting’s website and read Greg Palast’s book. I’m not a dumb person, and I really want to learn what is known about the 2010 electoral results. But I absolutely can’t make head or tail out of almost all your article “2010 Midterms: Footprints of Election Fraud”. For instance, most of the following paragraphs jump from one year’s elections to another, sometimes mid-sentence. They discuss the results as though the reader had the same tables to refer to as you did while writing it, without posting those tables. It states conclusions w/o going through the steps you made to reach them, then throws in a bunch of statistics including a lot of unexplained jargon, and doesn’t explain how those statistics relate to your conclusions. It might as well have been in Greek.
“In 1998 Oregon decided to implement voting by mail, probably as a result of the 1992 debacle in which the state had the highest exit poll discrepancy (13.6%). In 1996, 10% of votes cast were uncounted. Oregon was the only “battleground” state in which Kerry improved his share over Gore. Kerry’s 51.4% share closely matched the unadjusted exit poll aggregate (52%) as one would expect being a battleground state. Since Bush won the recorded vote with 50.7-48.3%, Kerry did 3.1% better in Oregon than nationally. Oregon gave Obama 56.7% in 2008 (3.8% more than his 52.9% recorded national share).
“But at this late date, the evidence (statistical and documented) is overwhelming: the 2004 election was stolen. The Oregon recorded vote confirms it. But since exit pollsters have not released 2008 unadjusted exit polls, we can’t compare them to the recorded vote shares. We do have the Final 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that there was a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 450% turnout of living third-party voters. According to the Final, there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Therefore, Obama must have done much better than the recorded 52.9% share than the NEP indicates. Oregon had it right in 2008, just like it did in 2004.”
The most frustrating thing of all is that it’s clear that YOU know much of significance that you feel is a smoking gun all but proving fraud in the 2010 elections. However, I can’t utilize any of it to inform my own opinions (I can’t even tell whether you think Oregon’s vote by mail made it’s results more or less reliable than other states’ results), and certainly can’t pass it on to friends and colleagues to inform them.
I notice the only thing in your article readers commented on was your statement about how odd it is that Democrats are not taking on the problem of election fraud. People are reluctant to say that they can’t understand something, but my guess is that the Democratic Party inaction statement is all that they understood of what you wrote. The rest of the comments were readers describing their own voting experiences and theories.
So, I beg you, PLEASE rewrite this article as though you were teaching a 10-year old, being especially careful to discuss one thing at a time, show each step that you used to arrive at your conclusions including the data that took you there, and HOW it showed what you believe it showed. After all, the point of an OEN article is to give info and analysis people can use to affect the political dialog.
———————————————————————————–
I wrote the letter above to send you on OEN before I found out that you block communication w/ readers there, most likely to prevent them from asking for explanations of your writing. I now see from your response to Mr. Truesdale that you have no interest in making your analyses accessible. Saying that your’re “not the easiest read”, is a massive understatement. You expect readers to psychically follow your train of thought while you throw out bits and pieces of data. Only fellow experts who already have the same data as you and have statistically analyzed it themselves have the slightest chance at figuring out what you mean. And you take it as a declaration of war if they ask you to clarify a single aspect of your conclusions. I don’t know why you’ve chosen to focus on the study of election integrity since with the way you choose to report your findings you might as well be determining another trillion places of pi, for all the societal impact they’ll have. The title of your OEN article led me to expect I’d learn something important and be able to disseminate it to others. I still had hope when I wrote the above letter. Now that I see your lack of interest in making what you know accessible, I simply resent your wasting my time. Believe me, it won’t happen again.
richardcharnin
January 19, 2011 at 1:56 am
I will try to clarify the basic points in the analysis.
The point about Oregon is that since 2000 its recorded vote in every election has matched the True vote for Gore(47-46), Kerry (51-47) and Obama (57-41) unlike all other battle ground states. Election fraud was rampant in all other battleground states. In 2010, Senator Wyden had 57% of the vote, matching the pre-election polls – and Obama’s 2008 vote share. In the other Democratic battleground states (PA and WI), the Democrats share declined from 2008 -and they lost the senate races. This is powerful evidence that Oregon’s 100% paper ballot voting by mail system works – largely due to the mandatory handcounts of randomly-selected counties.
I have found that most readers do not make the effort to follow the details of the statistical analysis – for any number of reasons.
Your tone has now turned confrontational. You are obviously unfamiliar with my work on election fraud.
“I now see from your response to Mr. Truesdale that you have no interest in making your analyses accessible”. That statement is absolutely untrue. Do you think I went through the effort so that readers would not understand the analysis? That is absurd.
“Declaration of war”? Are you serious? Give me one example where I refused to explain the calculations.
My analysis is fully accessible in my book, “Proving Election Fraud” and on my website richardcharnin.com. Have you been there?
I have been posting on election integrity since 2002.
I did not purposively block readers on OEN and was unaware that it was set that way. I have always corresponded in my postings: Google TruthIsAll on Democratic Underground, Mike Malloy, Buzzflash, electionintegrity.org. , etc.
I have been wasting your time? Really? Then there is no point to further “clarify” the analysis, is there?
Laura Stein
January 19, 2011 at 5:36 am
“…there is no point to further “clarify” the analysis, is there?”
Only if I’m your only reader.
If you are going to clarify, you owe it to the OEN readers who spent an hour of their life trying to understand your article there to write the clarification in the form of another article on OEN. You will be able to tell if you’ve succeeded by the content of the comments.
richardcharnin
January 19, 2011 at 7:59 am
In your initial post, you wrote that I did not provide tables of the analysis:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2010-Midterms-Footprints-by-Richard-Charnin-101109-359.html
That is false. I provided links to the full analysis. You apparently missed them.
http://richardcharnin.com/2010SenateMidtermsPostElection.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/2010MediaPollstersSay.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm
http://richardcharnin.com/ObamaProof.htm
http://www.ap.org/media/pdf/EvaluationEdisonMitofsky.pdf
http://www.richardcharnin.com/19882008StateExitPollAnalysis.htm
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://richardcharnin.com/FurtherConfirmationOfaKerryLandslide.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_13th_congressional_district
http://electiondefensealliance.org/new_hampshire_2008_primary_analysis
etc.
Karen Boerboom
June 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm
It was hard to believe that Feingold lost the election. Now I know it was a (s)election! He held listening sessions in every county every year. No one, I think who was elected, did this. I wonder what Feingold will do now? The voters, will they do nothing? Karen/Platteville, WI
P.S. I was in northern Wisconsin when Feingold first ran and went to the cocktail parties that the other two candidates were holding at the same time in the same restaurant. From listening to each of the, I made my choice of Russ Feingold. He rarely disappointed with his votes. Remember his lone stance on the Patriot Act.
richardcharnin
June 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Karen,
I will never believe Feingold lost that election. You only have to look at what is going on in Wisconsin right now to see what the GOP is capable of. This is nothing new, The GOP has been stealing elections for decades.
MalleusMaleficarum
August 7, 2011 at 11:42 am
Richard Charnin is a national treasure. Now that Richard has proved his case for massive election fraud in the USA, it is time that others investigate to determine the methods and identities of the election fraudsters. For a start, Richard’s warnings about the recall elections in Wisconsin should send signals to election fraud units in that state.
Hiedi Strasters
March 18, 2012 at 10:13 am
Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thank you
Richard Charnin
March 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Hiedi,
Please share and let me know the responses.
Thanks
Richard