# Tag Archives: true vote model

## The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

http://richardcharnin.com/

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2013

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

The model is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). The calculation methods are:
1- National Exit Poll (“mix” adjusted to match the recorded vote)
Returning voter turnout calculated based on the previous election
2- recorded vote
5- True Vote

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

Matrix of Deceit

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

It is obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than the number who voted in the prior election for each candidate. Approximately 5% of voters pass in the four years between elections.

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

The National True Vote Model is based on total votes cast in the prior and current election. The True Vote (TV) is a function of the number of previous election returning and new voters and each candidate’s share of these voters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by on February 5, 2013 in Uncategorized

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

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

http://richardcharnin.com/

Richard Charnin
Jan. 22,2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

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

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

Posted by on January 24, 2013 in True Vote Models, Uncategorized

## Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models

Track Record: 2004-2012 Election Forecast and True Vote Models

Richard Charnin
Jan. 19, 2013

This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models.

Note that the Election Model forecasts are based on final state pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls, a subset of the total Registered Voters (RV) polled. The LVs always understate Democratic voter turnout; many new (mostly Democratic) voters are rejected by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). In addition, pre-election polls utilize previous election recorded votes in sampling design, rather than total votes cast. Total votes cast include net uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic. The combination of the LVCM and uncounted votes results in pre-election polls understating Democratic turnout – and their projected vote share.

2004 Election Model
Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean), 322 EV snapshot
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 252 EV
Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 349 EV snapshot, 336 EV expected Theoretical)
True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms
Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Projection Model: 56.4-41.6%
Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9%
Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8%

2008 Election Model
Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV simulation mean; 367 EV snapshot
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV
Unadjusted State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 419 EV snapshot, 419 expected EV
True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 EV expected; 321.6 EV simulation mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

Posted by on January 19, 2013 in Uncategorized

## Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Richard Charnin
Jan. 14, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

1 Comment

Posted by on January 14, 2013 in 2012 Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Late Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama:
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate (unadjusted): 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama:
Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Recorded: 51.0%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

1 Comment

Posted by on January 9, 2013 in 2012 Election

## 2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

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

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

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

Richard Charnin
Dec.13, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

1 Comment

Posted by on November 30, 2012 in 2012 Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

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

Implausible: Match to the Recorded vote

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

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

Pundits, Naysayers and the Myth of Fair Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late Vote vs. Election Day Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama vote margin

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

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

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

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

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

Calculating the Election Day Vote

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

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

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

Recorded…….. 126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%

Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

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

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

Total………..50.3% 58.0% 11,677

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

___________________________________________________________________

State and National Exit Polls

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early and Late Vote Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

Posted by on November 26, 2012 in 2012 Election

## 2012 Election Model Post-Mortem: Exactly right at 332 EV

2012 Election Model Post-Mortem: Exactly right at 332 EV

Richard Charnin
Nov.7, 2012

Obama won by 5 million recorded votes with 332 EV. But he did much better than that, just as he did much better than his recorded 9.5 million margin and 365 EV in 2008.

The recorded result was confirmed in the 2012 Election Forecast Model. Obama had 332 electoral votes based on the recorded vote total – not the True Vote. Obama was able once again to overcome the built-in fraud factor, which is reflected by a red-shift in the unadjusted exit polls.

But to paraphrase what Alec Baldwin told the real-estate salesmen in the famous opening scene of the classic film Glen Garry Glen Ross: “These are the unadjusted exit polls. They are gold – but you don’t get them. They’re for NEP only”.

The red-shift did not go away, even though the unadjusted exit polls (in just 31 states this time) have not been released. The recorded vote was projected based on the pre-election LV polls. The Monte Carlo Simulation derived Obama’s 99% win probability and exactly forecast his 332 (snapshot) EV.

But the True Vote Model forecast was 55-45% and 380 EV.

The expected theoretical 321 EV was calculated as the product sum: EV= ∑ P(i)* EV (i), i =1,51 states. The probability P(i) of winning the state’s electoral vote E(i) is based on the 2-party poll projection.

Obama had 51.9% of the two-party recorded vote. To match the recorded vote, Romney needed 17% of returning Obama 2008 voters and 50% of new voters. Romney needed a 2% turnout rate advantage of returning McCain voters over Obama voters. These are implausible vote shares, indicating that Obama did much better than the recorded vote. He won the True Vote by 56-44% (two-party).

Scroll down to row 375 in this spread sheet to view the sensitivity analysis.

Pre-election pollsters anticipate the red-shift without saying so. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) reduces Democratic turnout in LV polls. And the polling samples are based on previous election demographics in which recorded votes are always inflated for the Republicans.

As usual, the pollsters accurately projected the recorded vote. Also, as always, they avoided a True Vote analysis. That’s because the pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote, not the True Vote.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released