# Tag Archives: national exit polls

## The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2013

According to the adjusted 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls, there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a mathematical impossibility and proof of election fraud beyond any doubt.

It’s obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than the number who voted in the prior election. Approximately 5% of voters pass in the four years between elections. ALL exit polls are adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote. It’s no secret. It’s the standard, stated policy of the National Election Pool. The insane rationale for the forced match is that the recorded vote is always fraud-free. But the real reason is to hide the extent of fraudulent vote miscounting.

The adjusted, published exit poll is a Matrix of Deceit. The True Vote Model (TVM) replaces the impossible, forced adjustments made to the unadjusted exit polls with a feasible, plausible estimate of returning voters.

The TVM applies to all elections, not just national. Presidential elections are used in this analysis as they are well-known; historical data is readily available. The TVM has been used to analyze congressional, senate and recall elections – and has uncovered strong evidence of fraud.

A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) is an application based on Matrix Algebra. The key to understanding the theory is mathematical subscript notation. The actual mathematics is really nothing more than simple arithmetic.

The model is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). Calculation methods are the following:

1- National Exit Poll
(returning voters (and vote shares) adjusted to match the fraudulent recorded vote)

True Vote Methods: Returning voters based on the previous election
2- recorded vote
5- True Vote

The National True Vote Model is based on total votes cast in the previous and current election. The True Vote Model (TVM) is a set of linear equations which calculate each candidate’s share of a) previous election returning voters and b) new voters who did not vote in the previous election.

In each election, the Final National Exit Poll vote shares are used – except for 2004 in which 12:22am shares are used; they were “adjusted” and forced to match the recorded vote.

The US Vote Census provides an estimate of the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.

Sensitivity Matrix: alternative scenarios
These tables gauge the sensitivity of the total candidate vote shares to changes in their shares of returning and new voters.

In 2004,Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). However, at the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline (13047 respondents), Kerry had 91% of returning Gore voters, 10% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters. In this base case scenario, Kerry had a 53.6% True Vote share and 10.7 million vote margin.

Sensitivity analysis indicates that Kerry won all plausible (and implausible) scenarios. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters to win the fraudulent recorded vote.

Adjusting the base case vote shares to view worst case scenarios:
1) Kerry has 91% (no change) of returning Gore voters, just 8% of returning Bush voters and 53% of New voters. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.1% and a 7.2 million winning margin.

2) Kerry has just 89% of returning Gore voters, 8% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters (no change). Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.0% and a 6.9 million margin.

3) Assume the base case vote shares, but change the 98% returning 2000 voter turnout rate to 94% for Gore and 100% for Bush. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.7% and a 8.5 million margin.

4) Assume the base case 98% turnout of returning Gore and Bush voters and 91% Kerry share of returning Gore voters. To match the fraudulent recorded vote, Bush needed 61% of New voters compared to his 41% exit poll share. He also needed 96% of returning Bush voters compared to his 90% exit poll share. The required shares easily exceeded the 2% margin of error. The probabilities are infinitesimal.

Returning voters
The number of returning voters (RV) is estimated based on previous election voter mortality (5%) and an estimated turnout rate (TR).

Let TVP = total votes cast the in previous election.
Let TVC = total votes cast in the current election.

In 2000, 110.8 million votes (TVP) were cast. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years. In the base case, we assume equal 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. We calculate (RV) returning 2000 voters:
RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR
RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98

In 2004, 125.7 million votes were cast. The number of new 2004 voters (TVN) is the difference between 2004 votes cast (TVC) and returning 2000 voters (RV):
TVN = TVC – RV
TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2

Matrix notation
V (1) = returning Democratic voters
V (2) = returning Republican voters
V (3) = returning other (third-party) voters
RV = V (1) + V (2) + V (3) = total returning voters
V (4) = TVC – RV = number of new voters.

Calculate m (i) as the percentage mix of total votes cast (TVC) for returning and new voters V(i):
m (i) = V (i) / TVC, i=1, 4

Let a (i, j) = candidates (j=1,3) vote shares of returning and new voters (i=1,4).

True Vote calculation matrix
Vote Mix Dem Rep Other
Dem m1 a11 a12 a13
Rep m2 a21 a22 a23
Oth m3 a31 a32 a33
Dnv m4 a41 a42 a43

The total Democratic share is:
VS(1) = ∑ m(i) * a(i, 1), i=1,4
VS(1)= m(1)*a(1,1) + m(2)*a(2,1) + m(3)*a(3,1) + m(4)*a(4,1)

Republican share:
VS(2)= m(2)*a(1,2) + m(2)*a(2,2) + m(3)*a(3,2) + m(4)*a(4,2)

Third-party share:
VS(3)= m(3)*a(1,3) + m(2)*a(2,3) + m(3)*a(3,3) + m(4)*a(4,3)

Mathematical vote share constraints
Returning and new voter mix percentages must total 100%.
∑m (i) =100%, i= 1, 4

Candidate shares of returning and new voters must total 100%.
∑a (1, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (2, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (3, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (4, j) =100%, j=1, 3

Democratic + Republican + third-party vote shares must total 100%.
∑ VS (i) = 100%, i=1,3

```Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (match recorded vote) 2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout Gore 45.25 37% 90% 10% 0.0% 93.4% Bush 52.59 43. 9.0 91. 0.0 109.7 (impossible) Other 3.67 3.0 64. 14. 22. 97.7 DNV. 20.79 17. 54. 44. 2.0 - Total 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 101.4%```

``` 2004 True Vote Model 2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout Gore 52.13 41.5% 91% 9.0% 0% 98% Bush 47.36 37.7 10.0 90.0 0.0 98 Other 3.82 3.00 64.0 14.0 22. 98 DNV. 22.42 17.8 57.0 41.0 2.0 - Total 125.7 100% 53.5% 45.4% 1.0% 98% Kerry share of New voters (DNV) Pct 39.% 55.% 57.% 59.% 61.% of Bush........ Kerry % Vote Share 12% 51.1 54.0 54.3 54.7 55.1 11% 50.7 53.6 54.0 54.3 54.7 10% 50.4 53.2 53.6 53.9 54.3 9.% 50.0 52.9 53.2 53.6 53.9 4.% 48.1 51.0 51.3 51.7 52.1 ............... Kerry Margin 12% 4.6 11.8 12.8 13.6 14.6 11% 3.7 10.9 11.8 12.7 13.6 10% 2.7 10.0 10.9 11.8 12.7 9.% 1.8 9.0 9.91 10.8 11.7 4% -2.9 4.3 5.18 6.08 7.00 ```

```..........Returning Gore Voter Turnout Bush 94.% 95.% 96.% 97.% 98.% Turnout..... Kerry % Vote Share 96% 53.4 53.5 53.7 53.8 53.9 97% 53.2 53.3 53.5 53.6 53.8 98% 53.0 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.6 99% 52.8 53.0 53.1 53.3 53.4 100% 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.1 53.2 ............... Kerry Margin 96% 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.4 11.8 97% 9.86 10.3 10.6 10.9 11.3 98% 9.42 9.78 10.1 10.5 10.9 99% 8.97 9.33 9.69 10.1 10.4 100% 8.52 8.88 9.24 9.60 9.96 ```

Posted by on February 5, 2013 in True Vote Models

## Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

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

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

## 1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof

1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof

http://richardcharnin.com/

Richard Charnin
Jan. 22,2013

The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) has been updated to include the 2012 election. Anyone can run the model and calculate the True Vote for every presidential election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These deceptively simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight.

In the 1968-2012 elections, the Republicans led the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%. The Democrats led the True Vote by 49.6-45.1%, a 7.4% margin discrepancy.

The calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the Final National Exit Poll which is always adjusted to match the official recorded vote. It is a mathematical matrix of deceit. Consider the impossible turnout of previous election Republican voters required to match the recorded vote in 1972 (113%), 1988 (103%), 1992 (119%), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). This recurring anomaly is a major smoking gun of massive election fraud.

Methods 2-5 calculate the vote shares based on feasible returning voter assumptions. There are no arbitrary adjustments. Method 2 assumes returning voters based on the previous election recorded vote; method 3 on total votes cast (includes uncounted votes); method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; method 5 on the previous (calculated) True Vote.

In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically.

Final election vote shares are dependent on just two factors: voter turnout (measured as a percentage of previous living election voters) and voter preference (measured as percentage of new and returning voters).

The TVM uses best estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The vote shares are the adjusted National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote.

It turns out that the Final Exit Poll match to the recorded vote is primarily accomplished by changing the returning voter mix to overweight Republicans.

In 2004, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that 43% of voters were returning Bush 2000 voters (implying an impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004) and 37% were returning Gore voters. But just changing the returning voter mix was not sufficient to force a match to the recorded vote; the Bush shares of returning and new voters had to be inflated as well. Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (13660 respondents) by 51.0-47.5%.

In 2008, the adjusted NEP indicated that 46% of voters were returning Bush voters (an impossible 103% turnout) and 37% returning Kerry voters. Obama won the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents) by 61.0-37.5%.

Sensitivity Analysis

The final NEP shares of new and returning voters are best estimates based on total votes cast in the prior and current elections and a 1.25% annual mortality rate. But we need to gauge the effect of incremental changes in the vote shares on the bottom line Total Vote. The TVM does this automatically by calculating a True Vote Matrix of Plausibility (25 scenarios of alternative vote shares and corresponding vote margins).

The base case turnout percentage of prior election voters is assumed to be equal for the Democrat and Republican. The turnout sensitivity analysis table displays vote shares for 25 combinations of returning Democratic and Republican turnout rates using the base case vote shares.

The National Election Pool consists of six media giants and funds the exit polls. In 2012 the NEP decided to poll in just 31 states, claiming that it would save them money in these “tough” times. It would have cost perhaps \$5 million to poll the other 19 states. Split it six ways and it’s less than the salary of a media pundit.

The published 2012 National Exit Poll does not include the “Voted in 2008” crosstab. It would have been helpful, but we don’t really need it. We calculated the vote shares required to match the recorded vote by trial and error, given the 2008 recorded vote as a basis. After all, that’s what they always do anyway.

Posted by on January 24, 2013 in True Vote Models

## 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

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

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. He had approximately 55% of 40 million early votes and 48% of 77 million votes cast on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% lead 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% ```

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

An objective analysis of the 2012 election shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. The 2012 True Vote Model indicates that Obama had an approximate 55-43% True Vote (a 15 million margin) and overcame the systemic 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won the recorded vote by just 51.0-47.2% (a 5.0 million margin) .

Media Gospel
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

## 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% Votes (millions)............... 126.8 65.9 61.0 ```
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

``` ................EDay Late Late Votes (000) Total...........50.3% 58.0% 11,677```

``` ```

```Alabama.........39% 37% 312 * Alaska..........41% 40% 80 Arizona.........43% 47% 666 * Arkansas........37% 36% 25 California......59% 63% 3,609 * Colorado........51% 54% 222 * 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 Nebraska........38% 44% 27 Nevada..........52% 69% 3 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

## A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Oct. 29, 2010
Update: March 25, 2013

Nate, you have it all wrong in your book. The Signal is the 52-42% Democratic lead in the 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls. The Noise is the media propaganda that the Democrats won by 48-46% as shown in the published adjusted polls. But we all know that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit polls to match the (bogus) recorded vote. The media (that means you) want the public to believe that Systemic Election Fraud is a myth.

Are you asking us to ignore a) the final exit polls or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even if they are fraudulent. If it’s (b), then you must believe that election fraud is a myth and that the recorded vote reflects actual voter intent (i.e. the true vote). Based on your writings, it must be (b). After reading your “ten reasons”, I can come up with ten reasons why you have never responded to my posts.

The “experts” whom you cite all have issues. You wrote: “Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from Mark Blumenthal’s outstanding Exit Poll FAQ”

Your first mistake was to believe all those discredited GOP talking points and to cite Mark Blumenthal as your source. You may not be aware that Mark was the original Mystery Pollster and has worked full-time since 2004 to debunk any references to exit polls as indicators of election fraud.

In June 2006, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a seminal article in Rolling Stone Magazine: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? In a pitiful attempt to debunk RFK, Salon’s Farhad Manjoo wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. Manjoo’s hit piece contained factual errors and omissions and was fully debunked by a number of analysts. Mark Blumenthal then attemped a defense of Manjoo and smeared RFK in this piece: Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls?

Now I will count the ways. My responses follow each of your statements as to why we should ignore exit polls.
NS
1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

RC
Not true. I should stop right here. Exit polls have a much smaller margin of error than pre-election polls. It stands to reason that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls because a) those polled know exactly who they voted for and b) in pre-election polls, respondents might change their mind – or not vote.

Regarding cluster samples, perhaps you are unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll as well as in the NEP Methods Statement that exit poll respondents were randomly-selected and the overall margin of error was 1%. Adding the standard 30% cluster effect raises the calculated 0.86% MoE to 1.1%.

But I understand why you would claim that exit polls are inaccurate since you apparently believe election fraud on voting machines is non-existent. After all, you never discuss the fraud factor. So of course you would conclude that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote indicate that the polls are wrong. The fundamental problem with all your analysis is that you fail to consider the possibility that the polls were close to the truth and the discrepancies from the recorded vote were the result of systematic election fraud. But that is typical of mainstream media pundits. If they discussed the fraud factor, they would be out of a job.

You apparently believe that the final Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls (which are a subset of all Registered Voters (RV) interviewed) are spot-on because they match the bogus recorded vote. But LV polls always understate Democratic turnout, since the vast majority of voters who fail to pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are young, newly registered Democrats. That’s one reason why Democrats average higher in the RV polls than in LVs and the media avoids the RVs in the month prior to the election. Another factor is that telephone polls miss cell-phone users who are young and Democratic. Most important, pre-election polls have been shown to overweight Republicans based on prior bogus recorded votes.

NS
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.

RC
There you go again, assuming that the recorded vote was fraud-free. Of course the Democrats always do better in the exit polls than in the recorded vote. But did you ever consider why? Perhaps you are unaware that millions of votes are uncounted in every election and the vast majority are Democratic (over 50% are in minority districts). The U.S. Census reported over 80 million net uncounted votes since 1968. You make the false assumption that the recorded vote is the True Vote. Uncounted votes alone put the lie to that argument, not to mention votes switched at the DREs and central tabulators.

You say Clinton did not win Indiana or Texas. How do you know? Can you provide proof that the voting machines were not tampered with? Perhaps you are unaware that in 1992 there were 9.4 million net uncounted votes, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton’s margins were very plausible. The exit polls indicated that he won Indiana by 53-30% (Perot had 16%) and Texas by 43-32% (Perot had 25%). But they were both likely stolen by Bush. Clinton lost Indiana (42.9-36.8%) by 138,000 votes (330,000 uncounted). He lost Texas (40.6-37.1%) by 215,000 (663,000 uncounted). So had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have won both states. Note that we are not even considering vote-switching from Clinton or Perot to Bush, just the uncounted votes.

In 1996, there were 8.7 million net uncounted votes – again, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton won the Indiana exit poll by 50-40%, but Dole won the recorded vote by 117,000, 47.1-41.6% (230,000 net uncounted). The Texas exit poll was tied at 46-46%, but Dole won by 280,000 votes, 48.8-43.8% (700,000 net uncounted). Again, had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have likely won both. And this does not include vote switching from Clinton or Perot to Dole, just the uncounted votes.

NS
3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year’s primaries. They overstated Barack Obama’s performance by an average of about 7 points.

RC
You are apparently unaware of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in which he advised Republicans to cross over in the Democratic primaries and vote for Hillary Clinton. His objective was to deny Obama the nomination. Obama easily won the all the caucuses in which voters were visually counted.

NS
4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample — essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place — in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.

RC
You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky wrote in the notes to the 2004 National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly selected as they exited the polling booth. What is your definition of a random sample?

NS
5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election.

You quote a biased GOP pollster who never did an exit poll. There is no evidence that Democrats are more likely to participate. In fact, the historical data shows otherwise. You are resurrecting the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis that was disproved by the exit pollster’s own data in each of the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. It is also contradicted by a linear regression analysis which showed that response rates were highest in partisan GOP precincts and Red states.

NS
6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before Election Day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.

RC
You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky claimed that their 2004 precinct design sample was near perfect.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that in the 2000 election, nearly 6 million ballots were never counted (a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional) – and 75-80% were Gore votes – meaning that his True Vote margin was at least 3 million more than his recorded 540,000. And that is why Gore led the state exit poll aggregate by 50-45%.

You are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that in Florida there were over 180,000 spoiled ballots (113,000 double and triple-punched and 65,000 underpunched) that were never counted – and 75% were Gore votes. You apparently believe the GOP con that the spoiled ballots were due to stupid voters. Why don’t you mention the thousands of Gore absentee ballots that were discarded? Perhaps you are unaware that it has been determined GOP election officials discarded Democratic absentee ballots and included GOP ballots that were filed after the due date. And what about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot in which thousands of Jews were fooled into voting for Buchanan?

If you really believe that Bush won both the national and Florida elections in 2000, then you must also believe that a) the tooth fairy exists, b) global warming is just a hoax and c) the economic meltdown was due to natural supply and demand forces and that the economic forecasting models were at fault. You ignore the strong evidence that the meltdown was due to corrupt global banksters gaming the financial system. And of course, you ignore the election fraudsters that have systematically gamed the computers to miscount votes and prevent millions of eligible citizens from voting. According to you, it is all just noise, never human corruption.

NS
7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.

RC
As a quant, you should ask how was it that Kerry led by 51-48% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) but Bush led at 1:00am at the final (13660) after just 613 additional respondents? It’s simple. The pollsters had to force the National to match the bogus recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%). It was impossible – a total sham. It was Kerry who led the final unadjusted NEP by 51.7-47.0%.

Are you aware that final exit polls are always FORCED to match the recorded vote? The 2004 adjusted final National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush voters and 37% Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5 million voters in 2000 – and approximately 2.5 million died. So there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. If 47 million turned out, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. How do you explain that?

In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents) by 61-37%. But the poll was forced to match the recorded 52.9-45.6%. Are you aware that Obama had 52.4% of 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and 59.2% of the 10 million recorded later?

NS
8. “Leaked” exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes, sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be reporting data from “first-wave” exit polls, which contain extremely small sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other places on the Internet (though likely not from Geraghty and Drudge, who actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are completely fabricated.

RC
Really? Are these fabricated? You are apparently unaware of the National Exit Poll timeline. Kerry led by 51-48% at 4:00pm (8349 respondents), 9:00pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). Kerry led at the final 13660 respondents by 51.7-47.0%. But at approximately 1:00am, Kerry responders were flipped to Bush in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote.

NS
9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics — will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? — the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling.

RC
Perhaps you are unaware that high turnout is always good for the Democrats. That’s why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote. The National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won 57-62% of new voters and that Obama had 72% of new voters in 2008. But at least you now agree that exit polls are indeed random samples. Glad you corrected point #4.

NS
10. You’ll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really more trouble than they’re worth, at least as a predictive tool. An independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000 recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling particular states. I suggest that you do the same.

RC
I suggest that you do your homework. You will surely fail this Election Fraud Quiz. Exit polls are more trouble than they are worth? Yes, it’s true – for those who rig the elections. Perhaps you are unaware that the exit polls were the first indicators that the 2004 election was stolen. Nate, your problem is that you refuse to admit that Election Fraud is systemic – or that it even exists. You want your readers to believe that the recorded vote accurately depicts true voter intent and that the exit polls are always wrong. Tell that to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow when you guest on their show.

In 2008, Obama had a recorded 52.9% share and won by 9.5 million votes. But he had to overcome the 5% fraud factor. You are probably unaware that the unadjusted National Exit poll indicates that he won 61% of 17,836 respondents. Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents) winning by 23 million votes – exactly matching the True Vote Model which used the same adjusted final NEP vote shares.

The Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter weights in the adjusted final 2008 NEP implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters – an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush voters. The True Vote Model calculated a feasible 47/40% Kerry/Bush split. Bush won the bogus recorded vote by just 3 million but Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.

And you would also surely agree that there could not have been 5 million returning third-party voters indicated by the final 2008 NEP since just 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

We have the 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national exit polls from the Roper website (nearly 500,000 exit poll respondents). The Democrats led the polls by 52-42%; but just 48-46% in the recorded vote. That’s an awful lot of Reluctant Republican Responders, yes?

Presidential election fraud is consistent and predictable. The unadjusted state and national exit polls have matched the True Vote Model in every election since 1988.

You are probably unaware that of the 274 state exit polls in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 126 exceeded the margin of error (including a 30% cluster factor). Only 14 would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 126, 123 “red-shifted” to the Republican and THREE to the Democrat. The probability is 5E-106. Can you explain it?
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 000005

Finally, Nate, you need to gain a new perspective on exit polls.

—————————————————-
Track Record: 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

1 Comment

Posted by on November 17, 2012 in Media, Rebuttals

## Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov 5, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The model calculates an estimated True Vote forecast for the National aggregate or any state. The calculation is displayed below the input data section. State poll-based national vote shares, electoral vote and probabilities are displayed on the right side of the screen.
``` 2008 True Vote 2012 Vote Pct Obama Romney Obama 76.2 58.0% 72.4 68.8 54.2% 90% 10% McCain 53.0 40.3% 50.3 47.8 37.7% 7% 93% Other. 2.20 1.66% 2.10 1.97 1.6% 50% 50% DNV ...................8.27 6.5% 59% 41% Total 131.4 100% 124.8 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9% ..............True Vote........... 71.1 55.7 ............. Recorded Vote....... 51.0% 47.2% ............. Projected 2-party... 51.6% 48.4% ............. Electoral Vote ............. Projected Snapshot.. 332 206 ............. 500 Simulation Mean. 321 217 ............. Expected True EV.... 385 153 ............. EV Win Probability.. 99.8% ```
This worksheet contains the weekly polling trend analysis.

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

View this 500 election trial simulation electoral vote frequency graph.

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

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

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

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

No exit polls in 19 states

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

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

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

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

Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

Registered and Likely Voters

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

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

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

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

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

2004 and 2008 Election Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

The True Vote Model

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

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

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

Monte Carlo Simulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fraud Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 Election Model Graphs

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

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

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

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

Track Record: 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

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

## 10/06/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 295 EV; 89% Win Probability

10/06/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 295 EV; 89% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Oct. 6, 2012

Note: This is the final Nov.5 projection: 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model.

Click this link to the final 2012 forecast. It was exactly right: Obama had 51.6% (2-party) and 332 EV with a 99.6% win probability. But his True Vote was 55% with 380 EV. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/4380/

The 2008 Election Model also predicted Obama’s recorded vote exactly at 365 EV and 52.9% with a 100% win probability. But his True Vote was 58.0% with 420 EV. http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model is updated on a daily basis. The projections assume the election is held on the latest poll date. Two forecasting methods are used.

The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls and currently assumes an equal split of undecided voters. The expected electoral vote is the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

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

On Oct.6 Obama led the weighted average of the state pre-election polls by 48.3-45.6% and the national poll average by 48.3-47.2%. Romney’s “bounce” from the debate reduced Obama’s expected electoral vote to 295, down from 325 last week and 342 two weeks ago.

The Gallup poll taken after the debate(10/4-10/6) was tied at 47-47%. Obama led by 50-45% before the debate (9/30-10/2). The Rasmussen poll is tied at 48%.

If the election were held today, the Monte Carlo simulation indicates that Obama would have an 89% probability of winning the electoral vote.

Likely voter (LV) polls discount the pervasive systematic fraud factor. They are traditionally excellent predictors of the recorded vote – which always understate the Democratic True Vote. The LV polls anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 55.6% True Vote share and 381 electoral votes. Based on the historical record, Obama’s True Vote share is about 4-5% higher than the latest polls indicate. It is a certainty that he will lose millions of votes on Election Day to fraud.

The only question is: Will Obama be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

Forecast Summary

The source of the polling data is the Real Clear Politics (RCP) website. The simulation uses the latest state polls. Recorded 2008 vote shares are used for states which have not yet been polled.

2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model
``` 10/06/2012 UVA = undecided voter allocation = 50/50% True Vote Model Obama Romney True Vote...... 55.6% 44.4% (see model) Expected EV.... 381 157 EV = sum(state win prob (i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 Snapshot EV.... 391 147 Sum of state EV EV Win Prob.... 100% 0% ```

``` State Polls Average........ 48.3% 45.6% (state vote-weighted average) Projection..... 51.4% 48.6% (RCP Polls + UVA) Pop. Win Prob.. 81% 19% (3.0% MoE assumed for calculation) Expected EV.... 295.3 242.7 EV = sum(state win prob(i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 Snapshot EV.... 263 275 Sum of winning state electoral votes National Polls Average........ 48.3% 47.2% (RCP poll average) Projection..... 50.6% 49.4% (RCP polls + UVA) Pop. Win Prob.. 71% 29% (2.0% MoE assumed for calculation) Gallup......... 47% 47% (1387 RV, 3.0% MoE) Rasmussen...... 48% 48% (1500 LV, 3.0% MoE) ```

```Monte Carlo Simulation (500 Election trials) Projection..... 51.4% 48.6% (RCP state polls + UVA) Mean EV........ 296.3 241.7 (average of 500 election trials) Maximum EV..... 348 190 Minimum EV..... 240 298 EV Win Prob.... 89% 11% (445 wins/500 election trials) ```

2004 and 2008 Election Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes.

The True Vote Model

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

In projecting the national vote, the TVM uses estimated returning 2008 voter turnout in 2012 and corresponding 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate result.

A 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. There are two options for estimating returning voters. The default option assumes that 2008 voters return in proportion to the unadjusted 2008 exit poll aggregate (Obama won by 58-40.5%).

It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The 1988-2008 True Vote Model utilizes estimates of previous election returning and new voters and and adjusted state and national exit poll vote shares.

Sensitivity analysis

The TVM displays the effects of effects of incremental changes in turnout rates and shares of returning voters. Three tables each display nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. Obama’s vote share, winning margin and popular vote win probability are displayed for each scenario.

Monte Carlo Simulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fraud Factor

Election fraud reduced the 1988-2008 Democratic presidential unadjusted exit poll margin from 52-42% to 48-46%. View the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

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

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

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

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

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

Election Model Projections

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

2004 Election Model Graphs

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

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

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

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

2008 Election Model Graphs

Pre-election RV and LV Polls

Virtually all early pre-election polls are of Registered Voters (RV). The Rasmussen tracking poll is an exception, using a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the full RV sample. Rasmussen is an admitted GOP pollster.

One month prior to the election, pollsters replace the full RV sample polls with LV sub-samples, helping to promote an artificial “horse race” as the poll shares invariably tighten. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) effectively understates the voter turnout of millions of new Democrats, increasing the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in the full RV polls than the LVs.

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

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters are allocated and have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The disinformation loop is closed when the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls are adjusted to match the LV recorded vote prediction.

In pre-election and exit polls:
1) The Likely Voter Cutoff Model eliminates newly registered Democrats from the LV sub-sample. Kerry had 57-61% of new voters; Obama had 72%.
2) Exit poll precincts are partially selected based on the previous election recorded vote.
3) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 226 of 274 exit polls red-shifted" to the Republicans. Only about 137 would normally be expected to red-shift. The probability is zero.
4) 126 of the 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error. Only 14 (5%) would normally be expected. The probability is ZERO.
5) 123 of the 126 exit polls that exceeded the margin of error red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability is ZERO.