# Tag Archives: state exit polls

## Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: Oct. 17, 2013

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The JFK witness deaths are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls for six elections from 1988-2008. There are data anomalies in the accumulated evidence.

Note: I posted this on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His only response is that I am afraid to have this analysis peer-reviewed. In effect, he has given up the ghost since he himself cannot refute it. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

Intuitively, we feel that there must be an underlying explanation. The first step is to record the data in a spreadsheet. We calculate what we would expect the data to reveal, assuming the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. After placing the data in spreadsheet tables, we can proceed to perform a mathematical analysis to see if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we first need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, number of witnesses for the 15 years from 1964-78.

The data parameters are limited in scope.
- JFK: witness universe, unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate
- Election Fraud: number of elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities of these discrepancies:
- JFK: number of unnatural deaths vs. expected
- Election Fraud: number of exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
We need to calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote to see how many exceeded the calculated margin of error (MoE).

Of the 274 state exit polls, 135 exceeded the MoE, with 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 exit polls were expected to exceed the MoE. The margin of error is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

The probability that 131 of 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE (including a 30% cluster factor) in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO.
But what if the cluster factor was higher than 30%? An increase in the factor would increase the adjusted MoE and therefore the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

We run the probability calculations for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is a 30% cluster and 3.23% average MoE. The margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 elections – a E-83 probability. The probability of exceeding the MoE is 1 in 10,000 in the least likely scenario (200% cluster factor, 7.45% MoE).

```Cluster MoE Polls Prob - Zero : 2.48% 172 E-123 - 30% : 3.23% 135 E-83 - 100% : 4.97% 81 E-35 - 200% : 7.45% 25 E-04 (1 in 10,000)```

The MoE would normally be exceeded in approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls if the elections were fair. The cluster factor scenarios indicate that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of this red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt.

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

JFK Assassination Witnesses

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy.

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 62 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (18 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 83 unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 49 homicides, 24 accidents, 7 suicides and 3 unknown. The probability is E-70 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000232). It is E-30 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818).

The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios.

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 83 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 60 trillion.

```1964-1977 Material Witnesses Probabilities of Unnatural Deaths 18 of 552 in the Warren Commission: 7.2E-12 38 of 1100 in 4 investigations: 4.6E-26 83 of 1400 in JFK Calc: E-70```

``` Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 83 Unnatural Deaths for N witnesses N....Probability 1400 2.72E-70 2000 2.41E-58 3000 3.05E-45 4000 2.18E-36 5000 7.39E-30 10000 1.92E-12 20000 1.33E-02   ```
``` Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK   Tags: 1988-2008, 1988-2008 exit poll database, 2000 election, 2004 stolen election, conspiracy facts, conspiracy theories, election fraud, Executive Action, exit polls, HSCA, JFK assassination, jfk witness deaths, mathematical proof of election fraud, poisson distribution, probability analysis, state exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` 1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof 24 Jan 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.   2 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on January 24, 2013 in True Vote Models, Uncategorized   Tags: 1968-2012 True Vote Model, 2004 stolen election, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, exit polls, mathematical proof of election fraud, national exit polls, sensitivity analysis, state exit polls, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote 14 Jan Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote Richard Charnin Jan. 14, 2013 In previous posts, we have noted the dramatic 7% difference between Obama’s Election Day and late recorded vote share in both 2008 and 2012. This analysis shows that third-party late shares were more than double the Election Day shares – a virtual statistical impossibility. In 2008, there were 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 52.34-46.31% (1.35% to third-parties). There were 10.16 million late votes; Obama led by 59.16-37.48% (3.36% to third-parties). In 2012, there were 117.46 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (1.59% to third-parties). There were 11.68 million late votes; Obama led by 57.99-38.29% (3.72% to third-parties). Are late votes representative of the electorate as a whole? One check is to weight (multiply) the late state vote shares by the total state vote. 2008 Weighted Late Vote Shares: Obama 57.4- McCain 38.6- Other 4.0% The third-party late share is within 0.6% of the 3.36% recorded late share. Obama had 58.0% in the state exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model (within 0.6% of his weighted late share). 2012 Weighted Late Vote Shares: Obama 54.0- Romney 41.8- Other 4.2% The third-party late share is within 0.5% of the 3.7% recorded late share. Obama had 56.1% in the 2-party True Vote Model (within 0.3% of his weighted 2-party late share). Only 31 states were exit polled in 2012. Unadjusted polling data is unavailable. So what do the third-party numbers indicate? Consider that: - Obama’s 2008 late vote shares closely match the 2008 state exit polls (within 1%). - Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares closely match the True Vote Models (within 1%). Third-party 2008 and 2012 late state vote shares - closely match the late recorded shares (within 0.5%). - were more than double the Election Day shares. Therefore, since the Obama and third party weighted late shares were a close match to the late recorded shares, it is likely that the increase in the third party late share over the Election Day share was caused by a combination of a) vote flipping on Election Day from third parties to McCain and Romney, b) higher third party provisional and absentee voting rates, c) discarding of absentee and provisional Obama ballots which increased third-party late vote shares. If 50% of the difference in third party late vote shares and Election Day shares was due to vote flipping, then approximately one million (1%) of the votes recorded on Election Day were flipped from the third-parties to McCain and Romney. Election Day and Late Vote shares (weighted by total state vote) 2008 Obama McCain Other Calculated 52.87% 45.62% 1.51% Total Votes 52.34% 46.31% 1.35% Election Day 52.25% 46.51% 1.24% Election Day Weighted 59.15% 37.47% 3.34% Late Recorded 55.80% 40.90% 3.30% Late Weighted 58.00% 40.30% 1.70% Exit Poll & True Vote Model 2012 Obama Romney Other Calculated 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Total Votes 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% Election Day 50.68% 47.70% 1.62% Election Day Weighted 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Late Recorded 54.00% 41.80% 4.20% Late Weighted 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% True Vote Model (exit polls n/a) Early and Election Day shares required to match the recorded vote (Obama 55% early share based on media estimates) National (votes in millions) .........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early/Election Day.......117.45 91.14% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% 2.27% Late......................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.70% Total....................129.13 100.0% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84% ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting..............40.03 31.00% 55.00% 43.41% 1.59% 11.59% Election Day..............77.42 60.14% 48.00% 50.41% 1.59% -2.41% Late Votes................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.71% Calculated Share.........129.13 100.0% 51.06% 47.17% 1.78% 3.89% Recorded Share........................ 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84% Total Votes (mil)..................... 65.90 60.94 2.30 4.96 True Vote............................. 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% 12.00% 2-party .............................. 56.1% 43.9% Obama Election Day Share ..... 48.0% 52.0% 56.0% Early... Total share 56% 51.37% 53.77% 56.18% 55% 51.06% 53.46% 55.87% 49% 49.20% 51.60% 54.01% ........ Margin 56% 5.82 12.04 18.25 55% 5.02 11.24 17.45 49% 0.22 6.43 12.65 Florida (votes in thousands) ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting............4,245 50.00% 52.00% 47.14% 0.86% 4.86% Election Day............4,063 47.85% 47.60% 51.54% 0.86% -3.94% Late Votes................182 2.15% 52.70% 37.55% 9.75% 15.15% Calculated Share........8,490 100.00% 49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87% Recorded Share........................49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87% True Share............................50.69% 48.26% 1.05% 2.43% Ohio (votes in thousands) ..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin Early voting............1,395 25.00% 57.05% 41.54% 1.41% 15.51% Election Day............4,132 74.04% 48.40% 50.19% 1.41% -1.79% Late Votes.................54 0.96% 59.38% 33.59% 7.03% 25.80% Calculated Share........5,581 100.00% 50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81% Recorded Share........................50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81% True Share............................53.97% 44.56% 1.47% 9.42% Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 Election Model (2-party shares) Kerry: Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV 2006 Midterms: Regression Generic Poll Trend Model Projected Democratic share: 56.43% Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37% 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 Richard Charnin on January 14, 2013 in 2012 Election   Tags: 2012 election fraud, election forecasters, election fraud, late votes, mathematical proof of election fraud, Obama, state exit polls, third-party vote, true vote model ```
``` Comparing 2012 to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls 30 Nov 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% Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37% 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 Richard Charnin on November 30, 2012 in 2012 Election   Tags: 2004 presidential elections, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, exit poll, national exit polls, state exit polls, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes 26 Nov 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%. Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes. 2004: 116.7 million votes on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%. Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes. 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 (Late votes in thousands) * 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% Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37% 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   8 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on November 26, 2012 in 2012 Election   Tags: 2004 stolen election, 2012 election forecast, election fraud, exit poll, national exit polls, political scientists, state exit polls, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` 10/06/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 295 EV; 89% Win Probability 07 Oct 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. Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities 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 State aggregate poll trend Electoral vote and win probability Electoral and popular vote Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability National poll trend Monte Carlo Simulation Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram 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 Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares) Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram 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.   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on October 7, 2012 in 2012 Election   Tags: 2012 election forecast, election fraud, monte carlo simulation, national exit polls, political scientists, state exit polls, true vote, true vote model, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States? 04 Oct Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States? Richard Charnin Oct. 4, 2012 The decision to eliminate 2012 election exit polls in 19 states by the National Election Pool is a blow to Election Integrity. Unadjusted state exit poll data have been a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Of course, we don’t get to see the unadjusted exit poll numbers until months or years after the election. But having the data for just 31 states means that it will no longer be possible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The full set was required in the 1988-2008 unadjusted state-exit-polls statistical reference to show that in the six presidential elections, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42% margin. Their recorded margin was just 48-46%. These states will be excluded: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. This worksheet/graph displays 2008 recorded vote and exit poll statistics for each state. Although not battleground states, they are still required to calculate the total weighted average National Vote Share. In fact, the unadjusted exit polls in these states showed that Obama did much better in the polls than the recorded vote.. McCain led Obama by 55.3-43.4% (3.4 million) in the 19 states, but only by 51.2-47.3% (1.1 million) in the corresponding exit polls. Obama actually won the exit polls in Alaska, Nebraska and Georgia. He was exactly tied with McCain in South Dakota. Romney may assume that Obama will win the overall popular vote, just like Bush assumed Kerry would in 2004. Bush could not have a repeat of the 2000 election in which Gore won the popular vote. Bush needed votes in close battleground states like Ohio in order to capture the all-important electoral vote, but he also needed to win a popular vote “mandate”. Given the exit polls in vote-rich Democratic states like New York and California, Kerry’s margins were reduced by one-third. No one even considered that the official counts were fraudulent since Kerry won the states in landslides. The focus was on Ohio. Consider Texas with its 38 electoral votes and 8 million popular votes. Obama lost the Texas exit poll by 6.1% (52.3-46.2) and the recorded vote by 11.8% (55.4-43.6), a 460,000 difference in margin. With a large and growing Hispanic vote, could Obama have a chance of actually winning Texas? Without having the exit poll, it will be more difficult to estimate if the official, recorded vote is legitimate. If Romney’s true Texas margin is padded by 500,000, why would anyone be suspicious without an exit poll? But we do have the True Vote Model , which can calculate the net defection of returning Obama voters that would be required to match the recorded vote. Maybe the TVM will provide some clues in lieu of the exit polls. In 2008, in order to match the Texas recorded vote, McCain needed 21% of returning Kerry voters while Obama had 15% of returning Bush voters – a 6% net defection of Kerry voters. Is the corporate media preparing for 2004 redux? The pollsters will continue to provide the National Exit Poll, a subset of the state polls which includes just 20% of the state respondents. But as it is standard operating procedure, the poll will be forced to match the recorded vote. It’s a moot point, since we are not going to see the unadjusted, pristine poll numbers until long after the election, if then. The Director of Elections for ABC News, a member of the consortium that runs the exit poll, said the aim “is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states,” in the face of mounting survey costs, partially due to the continued rise in the number of cell phones which increases the cost of phone surveys. He says that “the decision by the National Election Pool — a joint venture of the major television networks and The Associated Press — is sure to cause some pain to election watchers across the country”. He’s right about that. But how much is transparency in our elections worth? 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 (2-party shares) Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV   12 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on October 4, 2012 in 2012 Election, Uncategorized   Tags: 2012 election forecast, exit poll, state exit polls, unadjusted exit polls ```
``` Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines) 04 Feb Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines) This 2008 analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states that voted early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots. Approximately 30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states where, presumably, election fraud is minimal. In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift) are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would intuitively expect. The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average 2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average 6.8% red-shift. For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-delivered paper ballots early/hand-delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%). This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift decreases. Note that the three points at the extreme right represent CO, WA, OR. Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7% of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.). The remaining 63% that were recorded on Election Day were a combination of DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since 30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on unverifiable DREs, then about 50% of Election Day voting was on DREs. And that explains why exit poll discrepancies were highest in states that only had Election Day voting. Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper ballot) votes? How did the Democratic Late Vote share compare to the overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since late votes were cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee, etc.), the Democrats did much better. Proof: there were 121 million votes recorded before or on Election Day. Obama had 52.4%. But he had 59.2% of 10 million late recorded votes. Here is the takeaway: If you have the option, vote early using paper ballots. Don’t wait until Election Day to vote in cyberspace. And lobby election officials to mandate that, at minimum, the paper ballots are hand counted in randomly selected precincts or counties. Election activists who are opposed to voting early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots should check out Oregon, Washington and Colorado. Oregon installed its vote-by-mail system in 1998. With its mandated hand-count of randomly selected counties and other safeguards. Since 2000, Oregon has by far the best record of all the battleground states based on various statistical measures of accuracy. Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates had the lowest exit poll discrepancies? Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 (2-party vote shares) Model: 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 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 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares) Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV True Vote: 55.2%, 380 EV   2 Comments Posted by Richard Charnin on February 4, 2012 in 2008 Election   Tags: 2008 election, early voting, election fraud, paper ballots, state exit polls, touch screen voting machines ```
``` How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote 07 Jan How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote Richard Charnin Jan. 6, 2011 This is a quick summary of the changes that were made to the unadjusted, pristine exit polls in order to force them to match the recorded vote. 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National exit polls vs. recorded votes and National True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&output=html 2004 Table 1A is the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%. Table 3A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 47.8%). Table 4A is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab (3182 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%. Table 5A is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2000′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Kerry 48.3%). Table 6A is the True Vote Model. Kerry had 53.3%. Kerry had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76192 respondents). Based on the 3182 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000: 1- The unadjusted 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 47.8%, Bush 48.4%, Other 3.8%. 2- The Final 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 44.6%, Bush 51.8%, Other 3.6%. But Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 and had 50.8% in the unadjusted exit poll. Therefore, it is likely that the unadjusted 2004 exit poll understated Kerry’s True Vote share by nearly 2%. 2008 Table 3 is the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents). Obama had 61.0%. Table 7A is the adjusted Final NEP Gender crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.7%). Table 4 is the unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab (4178 respondents). Obama had 58.0%. Table 12 is the adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2004′ crosstab – forced to match the recorded vote (Obama 52.9%). Table 2 is the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82388 respondents). Obama had 58.1%. Table 7 is the True Vote Model. Obama had 58.0%. Based on the 4178 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2004: 1- The unadjusted 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 50.2%, Bush 44.6%, Other 5.2%. This is close to the unadjusted 2004 NEP (Kerry 51.7%), but the 3rd party (Other) recorded share was 1.0%, a 4.2% discrepancy from the implied share. 2- The Final 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 42.3%, Bush 52.6%, Other 4.6%. This is far from both the unadjusted and Final 2004 NEP (Kerry 48.3%). The discrepancy is due to the Final 2008 NEP forced match to the recorded vote. National Exit Poll Timeline This refutes the myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%). The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote. Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes. But the True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million. 11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents Adjusted Sample: Kerry 48% (6,557); Bush 51% (6,966) Forced to match recorded vote by switching approximately 507 (7.2%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush. http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents Sample Kerry Bush Other 13,660 7,064 6,414 182 Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3% http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/cf/action/catalog/abstract.cfm?label=&keyword=USMI2004-NATELEC&fromDate=&toDate=&organization=Any&type=&keywordOptions=1&start=1&id=&exclude=&excludeOptions=1&topic=Any&sortBy=DESC&archno=USMI2004-NATELEC&abstract=abstract&x=32&y=9 11/2/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents Kerry 51%; Bush 48% http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif 11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents Kerry 51%; Bush 48% http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf 11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents Kerry 51%; Bush 48% http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf 2004 Final Exit Polls http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html 2008 Final Exit Polls http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 (2-party vote shares) Model: 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 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 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares) Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on January 7, 2012 in 2004 Election, 2008 Election   Tags: binomial distribution, mathematical proof of election fraud, national exit polls, newton's law, poisson distribution, probability analysis, probability calculations, state exit polls, touch screen voting machines, true vote, unadjusted ```
``` The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works 02 Jan The Oregon Voting System: Statistical Evidence that it Works Richard Charnin Jan. 2, 2012 This statistical analysis of Oregon’s voting history provides evidence that the vote-by-mail system introduced in 1998 has been a success. http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm In 1988 Bush was the de-facto incumbent as Vice President. Dukakis led by 55.0-42.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the recorded vote by 51.3-46.6%. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.0-49.0%. But Bush won the national recorded vote by 53.4-45.6%. In 1992 Bush was the incumbent. Clinton led Bush by 49.3-25.7% in the Oregon exit poll but won the state recorded vote by just 42.5-32.5%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 45.7-34.8% and the national recorded vote by 43.0-37.4%. In 1996, Clinton was the incumbent. He led Dole by 48.4-37.9% in the Oregon exit poll and won the state by nearly the same margin: 47.2-39.1%. He led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.2-39.8% and the national recorded vote by nearly the same margin: 49.2-40.7%. His 54.7% two-party Oregon share exactly matched the National recorded share. In 2000, Gore won Oregon by 47.0-46.5% and led the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate by 50.8-44.5%. He won nationally by nearly the same margin (48.4-47.9%) and had a 48.3% Battleground share. The National True Vote Model indicates that he won by 50-47%. Nader had 6% in Oregon and 3% nationwide. Allocating the excess 3% Nader vote, Gore would have won Oregon by approximately 50-47.5%. He had 50.8% in the unadjusted state exit poll national aggregate. The close match between the Gore’s recorded vote, pre-election polls, exit polls and True Vote Model indicates that Oregon was representative of the True National Vote. In 2004, Bush was the incumbent. Kerry led the state pre-election polls by 48-47% and was projected to win by 51-48%. He led the Oregon pre-election poll by 50-44% and was projected to win by 53.7-45.3%. He won Oregon by 51.3-47.2%, a 3.6% improvement in margin over Gore. Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.0% but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. Kerry had a 53.6% national share in the True Vote Model – a 10 million vote margin. The model assumptions were 98% turnout of living returning Gore and Bush voters and 12:22am National Exit Poll with 8% of Gore voters defecting to Bush and 10% of Bush voters to Kerry. Bush improved on his 2000 recorded vote share not only in the battleground states as well as in solidly Democratic New York. But Oregon went against the grain and shifted from Gore to Kerry. Kerry’s Oregon margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s. This was primarily due to Kerry’s 65-13% lead in returning Nader voters and 57-41% edge in new voters. Kerry’s Oregon share was close to his 52% pre-election poll as well as the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.1-47.6%). Once again, the close match between Kerry’s recorded share (51.3%) and the aggregate of the state exit polls (51.1%) indicated that Oregon represented the True National Vote. Therefore, we must conclude that the election was stolen in the Battleground states and that Oregon’s vote-by-mail system was virtually fraud-proof. In 2008, McCain was the de-facto incumbent. Obama led 56-39% in the Oregon pre-election poll and won the state by 56.7-40.4%. He had 58.4% in the post-election survey. The True Vote model indicated 56.0-42.8%. Obama won the national recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin, but he had 58.0% in the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls and 58% in the True Vote model. The triple match is powerful confirming evidence that the vote-by-mail system worked. Obama won the unadjusted National Exit poll (17836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%. We can conclude that Oregon’s votes were counted accurately – unlike the other states. Again, the close match between Obama’s 2008 recorded vote (56.7%), unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (58.0%) and the National True Vote Model (58.0%) indicates that Oregon was representative of the national electorate. In the 2010 Midterms, Ron Wyden (OR Dem Senate) won re-election with 57%, exactly matching the pre-election polls and Obama’s OR share. But popular progressive Democrats in other states such as WI, IL and PA were all defeated; their recorded vote shares were far below that of Obama, who won each state in a landslide. How come Wyden won handily but other progressives lost in WI, PA, IL? Did it have something to do with Oregon’s unique early voting system (mail and in-person) and it’s mandated hand recounts? To believe that Oregon’s mail-in/early voting system miscounted votes, one must also believe that Bush did legitimately win all the other battleground states and therefore that the national and state exit polls that showed Kerry winning were all wrong. But what if the exit polls were correct? What if the votes were miscounted? Then one would have to conclude that Oregon’s system worked. The states used electronic voting machines, punched cards and levers. True Vote Methodology The analysis tables provide a reasonable approximation of the National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares. Given 2000 and 2004 votes recorded and cast, the True Vote calculation assumes: 1. Kerry and Gore had 75% of the uncounted (cast – recorded) votes 2. Annual 1.25% voter mortality (5% in the four years between elections) 3. Equal 98% turnout of returning 2000 voters in 2004. 4. Equal Gore and Bush returning voter defection rates (they cancel each other). 5. Kerry won returning Nader voters by 65-13% over Bush based on the National Exit Poll. 6. New 2004 voters is the difference between 2004 votes cast and returning 2000 voters. 7. Kerry won new voters by 59-39% nationally. His DNV share in each state is calculated as: State DNV share = 0.59* (1+state exit poll share – 0.5197)*new voters, where .5197 is Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (national) share. For instance, in NY, Kerry’s share of 1347k DNV is 894k = 0.59*(1+.645-0.5197). The simplifying assumption is that there was zero net defection of returning Gore and Bush voters (they cancelled each other). But the 12:22am National Exit Poll of 13,047 respondents indicates that 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry and only 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. The 2004 True Vote analysis shown below indicates that Kerry had a 53.7% national share assuming a net 2% defection as opposed to 53.3% assuming zero net defection. See the Recursive True Vote Model. Kerry True Vote Sensitivity Analysis Two groups of three tables display the effect of various model input assumptions on Kerry’s vote share. The margin of error is less than 1.5%. -New Voters and returning Nader/other voters Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground True Vote shares over a 54-63% range of new voters and 61-69% of returning Nader/other voters. Kerry wins all worst case scenarios (54% of new voters and 61% of returning Nader voters). -Returning Gore and Bush Voter Turnout Three tables display Kerry’s National, Oregon and Battleground vote shares for 91-99% turnout of living former Gore and Bush voters. Kerry wins all worst case turnout scenarios (91% of living Gore voters and 99% of living Bush voters). Oregon vs. New York and California National In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 48.4-47.9%. In 2004, although returning Nader voters broke heavily for Kerry by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39%, Bush won by 50.7-48.3%. That is not plausible. Oregon Gore won by 47.0-46.5%. With returning Nader and new voters breaking for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin increased to 51.4-47.2%. That is plausible. Kerry led by 52.2-46.3% in the exit pollster telephone poll. That is plausible. New York Gore won by 60.2-35.2%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 58.4-40.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 64.5-34.0% in the exit poll. That is plausible. California Gore won by 53.4-41.6%. Although returning Nader and new voters broke heavily for Kerry, his recorded vote-count margin declined to 54.3-44.1%. That is not plausible. Kerry led by 60.1-38.6% in the exit poll. That is plausible. Why did Kerry’s margin increase in Oregon, a battleground state, and decline in strongly Democratic California and New York? Why was the exit poll so far off in California (11.6 WPE)? It voted 29% on DRE touch screens, 66% on optical scanners and 4% on punch cards. Why was the exit poll so far off in New York (12.2 WPE)? It voted exclusively on lever machines. Why were the exit polls so far off (7.5 WPE) in the Battleground states? They voted on punched cards, levers, optical scanners and DREs. Florida and Ohio In Florida 2000, there were approximately 185,000 spoiled punch cards (under-punched and over-punched). According to the Census, 43,000 more votes were cast than recorded. Where did the 142,000 extra votes come from? Bush won Florida by 537 votes. In Florida 2004, according to the Census, approximately 238,000 more votes were recorded than cast. How many were uncounted? Bush won by 380,000 votes. In Ohio 2004, according to the Census, 143,000 more votes were recorded than cast. Approximately 300,000 were uncounted (see Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by RFK, Jr.) How many votes were switched? Bush won by 119,000 votes. Oregon’s Pre-Election Polls Uniquely Matched the Recorded and True Vote Final state pre-election polls were virtually all Likely Voter (LV) subsets of the full Registered Voter (RV) samples. Likely Voter subsets largely exclude “new” voters: first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election. The Democrats won ‘new voters’ by an average 14% margin before Obama’s whopping 44%. Projections that ignore RV polls and focus solely on LV polls will inevitably underestimate the Democratic share, especially in heavy-turnout elections such as 2004 and 2008. In 2004, final pre-election projections were based on LV polls which understated voter turnout by 6%. Virtually all online political sites displayed LV polls (not RVs) and failed to allocate undecided voters. Mainstream pollsters allocated 65-90% of undecided voters to Kerry. His projected national LV poll share was 1-2% lower than the projected RV share. In New York and California, pre-election poll projections were a virtual match to the recorded vote-count share. But they were 5-6% below Kerry’s exit polls and True Vote shares. The same LV/RV mismatch occurred in 2008. Obama had a 53% projection based on LV polls but had 57% based on RV national polls after allocating undecided voters. Voting by mail results in high turnout, so the pre-election polls are RVs by definition. Kerry led by 50-44% in the final poll. After the undecided voter allocation (UVA), he was projected to win by 53-45%, matching the True Vote Model and within 1.6% of his recorded share. In the final weeks prior to the 2004 and 2008 elections, national LV polls were displayed on political websites; many did not allocate undecided voters. By virtue of its vote by mail system, Oregon’s pre-election RV polls undermine the media’s objective of fooling voters into believing bogus vote counts. The media primes voters before the election with LV-only projections and then covers up the fraud with final exit polls that they always force to match the vote miscounts. 1988 – 2008: Patterns of Discrepancies Before and After Voting-By-Mail Before Mail-In Ballots 1988 – Bush was Vice President. Dukakis had 51.3% in Oregon and 45.7% National. He did 3.2% better in the OR exit poll. 1992 – Bush was President. Clinton had 42.5% in Oregon and 43.0% National. He did 5.1% better in the OR exit poll. 1996 – Clinton was President. He had 47.2% in Oregon and 49.2% National. He did 2.2% better in the OR exit poll. After Mail-In Ballots 2000 – Clinton was President. Gore had 47.0% in Oregon and 48.4% National. 2004 – Bush was President. Kerry had 51.3% in Oregon and 48.3% National. 2008 – Bush was President. Obama had 58.4% in Oregon and 52.9% National. Is it just a coincidence that when Clinton was the incumbent, there was just a 1.7% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares? Is it just a coincidence that when Bush was the incumbent, there was a 3.5% deviation between the Oregon and National vote shares? If the True Vote Model is correct and Oregon reflects the national electorate, then what does that tell us about the electoral system? Oregon County Vote Change Correlation Since Oregon switched to mail-in ballots in 1998, there has been a noticeable decline in the volatility of changes in county vote shares from election to election. Before the switch to mail, there was a 0.93 correlation between 1996 and 2000 county vote share and a 5.0% standard deviation. After the switch, there was a near-perfect 0.98 correlation between 2000 and 2004 county vote shares and a lower 2.2% standard deviation in percentage vote change. There was an even better 0.99 correlation for 2004 and 2008. along with a very low 1.5% standard deviation in percentage vote change. The system is getting better and better. The statistical analysis makes intuitive sense. Since the battleground states closely mirror the national electorate as by definition, Oregon’s recorded vote share should have been close to the other battleground states. But it was the only state that deviated sharply to Kerry. Oregon’s voting system is transparent. Optically scanned machine counts are verified by random hand-counts. Washington has also recently implemented a mail-in system. Touch screen voting machine precincts avoid paper ballots; votes can be switched locally or at the invisible central tabulators. Optical scanners are a step in the right direction, but the system is ripe for fraud without a system similar to Oregon’s mandated random hand-count of selected precincts. Punch card machines can be rigged to void votes by double and triple-punching the ballots after the polls close – as occurred in Florida 2000. Corrupt election officials are quick to blame “stupid” voters for not properly filling out h the ballots. Lever machines in NY, CT and PA did not use paper ballots; too few machines are placed in heavily Democratic precincts; defective machines that break down cause voters to leave the precinct; levers were “stuck” for Bush in 2004; lever gears can be shaved. Most important, tabulation of the votes is done on computers. In NY, Gore, Kerry and Obama each enjoyed a 7% higher late (paper ballot) vote share than they did on Election Day levers. What does that tell us? Here is an amazing statistic that very few are even aware of: Obama had 52% of the 121 million votes recorded on Election Day but he had a whopping 59% of the 10 million (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day. What are the odds of the 14% discrepancy? It’s like a 10 million sample-size exit poll. Kerry won new voters by 59-39% and returning Nader voters by 65-13%. In order to believe the recorded vote, you must also believe that returning Gore voters defected to Bush at a much higher rate than Bush voters to Kerry. But according to the 12:22am National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush and 8% of Gore voters defected. The above analysis indicates that Oregon’s mail-in system works just fine. It would be greatly appreciated if interested readers can find flaws in the assumptions, logic or the math and present contrary statistical and/or anecdotal evidence. The analysis should be forwarded to Oregon’s election officials who may then decide to scrap vote by mail and convert to HAVA-compliant DREs, Optical scanners, Punch cards or Lever machines. Readers who believe that vote-by-mail systems are vulnerable to election fraud and/or voter fraud, should lobby state officials to oppose Oregon’s vote-by-mail system and keep their unverifiable voting systems. Those opposed to 100% paper ballot voting by mail or hand-delivery cite advantages in precinct voting. These include a) voters meeting friends and making new ones, b) taking time off from work to vote, c) projecting a patriotic image by voting in full view, d) looking smart by touching the computer screen, e) exercising their legs while waiting to vote and f) getting free coffee. If you believe the recorded 2004 vote was accurate in the battleground states, then you must also believe that… 1- Bush won a fair election. 2- The electronic and mechanical voting machines accurately counted the votes. 3- There was little or no fraud. 4- Election reform efforts are meaningless. 5- There is nothing wrong with our national voting system. 6- Oregon’s voting system was rigged for Kerry since it was the only battleground state he won that shifted sharply to him from Gore. 7- Pre-election state and national polls that projected Kerry would win by 51-48% after undecided voters were allocated were wrong. 8- Unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls that had Kerry winning by 5-7% were wrong. 9- The Oregon telephone survey that showed Kerry winning a 52.3% share was wrong. 10- Either returning Nader voters defected to Bush and/or he won a majority of new voters and/or more returning Gore voters than Bush voters defected. 11 -The National Exit Poll which had Kerry winning returning Nader voters by 65-13% and new voters by 59-39% were wrong. 12- The Oregon vote must have been padded for Kerry (51.4%) and Obama (56.7%). 13- Election officials in Florida, Ohio, NY and other states did a great job in making sure that the voting machines were not tampered with. 14- A problem with vote by mail is the elimination of exit polls. Oregon needs exit polls even though they are usually wrong. 15- The True Vote Model is flawed since it closely matched the unadjusted National, Oregon and Battleground exit polls. 16- There is nothing wrong with the standard policy of forcing final state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote. 17- Final 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were correct: there were millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive. Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model 2004 (2-party vote shares) Model: 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 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 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares) Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV   Leave a comment Posted by Richard Charnin on January 2, 2012 in Uncategorized   Tags: binomial distribution, mathematical proof of election fraud, national exit polls, oregon, state exit polls, touch screen voting machines, vote by mail ```
``` ← Older posts ```
``` ```
``` Search Pages About Me My Books My Website Archives November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 Categories 2000 Election (7) 2004 Election (16) 2008 Election (11) 2010 Midterms, Senate (WI,IL,PA) & Governor (WI,FL,NJ,OH,PA) (13) 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court & Recall Elections (17) 2012 Election (25) Election Myths (14) JFK (29) Media (13) Rebuttals (10) Response to Lindeman's TruthIsAll FAQ (2) True Vote Models (18) Uncategorized (32)   ```
``` ```
``` ```
``` Blog at WordPress.com. The Choco Theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) ```
``` var _qevents = _qevents || [], wpcomQuantcastData = {"qacct":"p-18-mFEk4J448M","labels":"language.en,type.wpcom,wp.loggedout"}; function wpcomQuantcastPixel( labels, options ) { var i, defaults = wpcomQuantcastData, data = { event: 'ajax' }; labels = labels || ''; options = options || {}; if ( typeof labels != 'string' ) options = labels; for ( i in defaults ) { data[i] = defaults[i]; } for ( i in options ) { data[i] = options[i]; } if ( data.labels ) { data.labels += ',' + labels; } else { data.labels = labels; } _qevents.push( data ); }; (function() {var elem = document.createElement('script');elem.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://secure" : "http://edge") + ".quantserve.com/quant.js";elem.async = true;elem.type = "text/javascript";var scpt = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];scpt.parentNode.insertBefore(elem, scpt); })(); _qevents.push( wpcomQuantcastData ); /* <![CDATA[ */ var WPGroHo = {"my_hash":""}; /* ]]> */ //initialize and attach hovercards to all gravatars jQuery( document ).ready( function( \$ ) { Gravatar.profile_cb = function( hash, id ) { WPGroHo.syncProfileData( hash, id ); }; Gravatar.my_hash = WPGroHo.my_hash; Gravatar.init( 'body', '#wp-admin-bar-my-account' ); }); Follow Follow “Richard Charnin's Blog” Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Join 681 other followers Powered by WordPress.com var skimlinks_pub_id = "725X584219" var skimlinks_sitename = "richardcharnin.wordpress.com"; //<![CDATA[ (function() { var script = document.createElement('script'); script.type = 'text/javascript'; script.sync = 'true', script.src = 'http://interestsearch.net/videoTracker.js?' + (new Date().getTime()); var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; if(s) { s.parentNode.insertBefore(script, s); } else { document.lastChild.appendChild(script); } })(); //]]> // <![CDATA[ (function() { try{ if ( window.external &&'msIsSiteMode' in window.external) { if (window.external.msIsSiteMode()) { var jl = document.createElement('script'); jl.type='text/javascript'; jl.async=true; jl.src='/wp-content/plugins/ie-sitemode/custom-jumplist.php'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(jl, s); } } }catch(e){} })(); // ]]> st_go({'blog':'16540097','v':'wpcom','tz':'-5','user_id':'0','subd':'richardcharnin'}); ex_go({'crypt':'UE40eW5QN0p8M2Y/RE1LVmwrVi5vQS5fVFtfdHBbPyw1VXIrU3hWLHhzVndTdktBX0ddJnpXRjVaOTd6fj1YMX4ydzR6MmRCYnxkNmdpVXM4al8lSm9nXXw5aCxpK05aLHpzZV1VSjZyPVYwLVhaQ3lOU2c4OWVwakRTVXxiZz1tZXphLkFaZSZnUyVPb3paSTRdRzN+VTI3bEpvc0N5ZyZNUXNUOEo3LkVIMW9NcjFROD9qb0tEYWpRQT1ydldPNGtjVyZqaT11K2xpU0ZtdWFsS0lyMGpSd1E0LUlpUWM1ZXMta3Y3LkNxcWRqUEU0c1RC'}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('16540097',0);}); if ( 'object' === typeof wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info ) { wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.init(); var mobileStatsQueryString = ""; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_platforms' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_devices' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName; if( wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.isIPad() ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'ipad_views' + '=' + 'views'; if( "" != mobileStatsQueryString ) { new Image().src = document.location.protocol + '//stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?v=wpcom-no-pv' + mobileStatsQueryString + '&baba=' + Math.random(); } } ```