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). Each method uses the final adjusted National Exit Poll vote shares, but methods 2-5 change the returning voter mix to a feasible one (calculation method):
Method 1 displays the adjusted National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote.
Method 2 assumes returning voters based on the previous election recorded vote.
Method 3 assumes returning voters based on the previous election votes cast (allocates uncounted votes).
Method 4 assumes returning voters based on the previous election unadjusted national exit poll.
Method 5 calculates the True Vote based on the previous election True Vote.

The True Vote (TV) is a function of the number of previous election returning and new voters in the current election and each candidate’s share of these voters.
TV = f(turnout, vote shares)

The US Vote Census estimates the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote.

The True Vote Model is based on total votes cast – as it should be. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.

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

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

For example, in 2004 there was an estimated 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years (1.25% per year). We calculate returning 2000 voters as:
RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR
RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98

There were 125.7 million votes cast in 2004. Therefore, we calculate the number of new voters TVN as:
TVN = TVC – RV
TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2

In the base case we assume an equal turnout rate of previous election Democratic, Republican and other (third-party) voters.
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 mathematical notation for the sum of the products:
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 sum to 100%
∑m (i) =100%, i= 1, 4

Candidate shares of returning and new voters sum to 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

Total (Democratic+ Republican + Other) vote shares sum to 100%
∑ VS (i) = 100%, i=1,3

Adjusted Exit Poll: Matrix of Deceit
It is obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than voted in the prior election for each of the Democrat, Republican and third-party candidates. Approximately 5% die in the four years between elections.

But according to the adjusted, published 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.

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.

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. Both shares far exceeded the 2% margin of error. The probabilities are infinitesimal.

The sensitivity analysis confirms that the election was stolen. Kerry won all plausible (and implausible) scenarios. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters to win the fraudulent recorded vote.

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
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
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

 

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 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.

Two Possibilities
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
4. Obama had 59% of new voters; McCain had 41%
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 National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls.
-  Just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents the calculation of the total aggregate vote share.
- Unadjusted state and national exit polls are not available. 
- The How Voted in 2008 category crosstab is not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll displayed on media election websites. It  was a key tool in proving election fraud. In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the pollsters needed millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive. 

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to see the actual, raw precinct exit poll data. What are the NEP and the exit pollsters hiding? If the data prove that fraud was non-existent, it would have been released. But every election has been fraudulent. Even without releasing the precinct data, unadjusted state and national exit polls prove that election fraud is systemic. 

National Exit Poll Crosstab Adjustments
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%
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

 

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

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

Richard Charnin
Updated: Jan.7, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Election Day and Late vote shares
(Late votes in thousands)
* indicates suspicious anomaly
…………….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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2000: 102.6 million votes recorded on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%.
Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes.

2004: 116.7 million votes recorded on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%.
Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

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

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

 

Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov.5, 2012

Click here to link to the model.

Are there any forecasters in the corporate media who discuss systemic election fraud and include a True Vote analysis in their models? I have not seen any. The pundits ignore election fraud completely by limiting their projections to the recorded vote. But they are missing the big story which can be expressed by the simple formula:

Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud factor

The forecast: Obama has 320.7 expected electoral votes (see the definition of the expected value below) and a 332 snapshot EV. His 99.4% win probability is based on 497 electoral vote wins out of 500 trial simulations. His projected popular vote share margin is 51-48%, a 69-65 million vote margin.

But the recorded vote is not the True Vote. The True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The True Vote Model indicates Obama would have approximately 371 EV, a 55% vote share and win by 74-59 million votes in a fraud-free election.

Obama’s 332 snapshot EV assumes he will win all the battleground states except for NC. The races are very close in CO (9), FL (29), NC (15), NH (4), NV (6), OH (18) WI (10), VA (13) and that is why the expected EV is just 320.7. But keep in mind that the projections are based on LV polls which a) always understate Democratic turnout and b) are at least partially based on previous election bogus recorded votes.

If FL, OH and NC are stolen, Obama will likely lose. Even though he won the True Vote, it was not enough to overcome the FRAUD FACTOR.

To the pundits, the Fraud Factor is zero. They are not paid to project the True Vote. Their projections are based on Likely Voter polls which are always close to the popular recorded vote. The public has always been led to believe that the recorded vote was in fact the True Vote. It never is. The historical uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic prove it. And there have been approximately 40-45 million uncounted ballots in the last six presidential elections – according to the U.S. Census. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that finally, after 12 long years, there is a near critical mass of election fraud awareness. The 2000 and the 2004 elections have been proven to be stolen. Of course, the media pundits know this. But they like their jobs too much to defy their editors.

But the word is finally getting out after decades of media silence and misinformation. Yes, it’s a conspiracy, all right – a conspiracy fact, not a theory. The simple fact is that the conspiracy is the media and politicians who have kept the facts about our broken electoral system hidden from the public. What is the proof? The proof is…they never talk about the millions of uncounted votes or the proprietary voting machines owned and serviced by right-wing organizations – who just so happen to also count the votes..

Unlike the other election forecasters in the media and academia, the 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Forecast model projects both the True Vote and the official Recorded vote.

- The Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation is based on the latest state likely voter (LV) polls.
- The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

The LV polls are based partially on a Likely Voter Cutoff Model which always reduces projected (Democratic) turnout. Another factor to keep inmind is that the polls are at least somewhat based on prior election recorded votes – which are themselves tainted.

Even so, Obama has a 99% probability of winning the Electoral Vote (EV). Models which indicate an 80% win probability based on the latest polls cannot be correct – probably because they include extraneous factor variables. An experienced modeler knows how to KISS (keep it simple stupid).

Only 500 election simulation trials are necessary to determine the EV win probability. Anything more than that is overkill. Calculating the expected EV does not require a million scenario combinations, either.

Assuming the polls, the state win probabilities p(i) can be calculated. The expected EV is just a simple summation based on the expected state electoral votes: Expected EV = ∑p(i)* EV(i), where i =1,51 states.

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

 

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov 5, 2012

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

The final 2008 Election Model was also right on the money. It forecast Obama would have 53.1% and 365.3 expected EV compared to his actual recorded 52.9% share and 365 EV. But he had a 58.0% True Vote Model share and 420 EV. His 58.0% share of the unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents) confirmed the True Vote Model.. He won unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37% (17,836 respondents).

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The model calculates an estimated True Vote forecast for the National aggregate or any state. The calculation is displayed below the input data section. State poll-based national vote shares, electoral vote and probabilities are displayed on the right side of the screen.

This worksheet contains the weekly polling trend analysis.

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

View this 500 election trial simulation electoral vote frequency graph.

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

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

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

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

No exit polls in 19 states

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

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

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

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

Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

Registered and Likely Voters

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

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

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

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

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

2004 and 2008 Election Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

The True Vote Model

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

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

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

Monte Carlo Simulation

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

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

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

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

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

The Fraud Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 Election Model Graphs

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

Published 10/27/12:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Richard Charnin
Oct. 6, 2012

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.

 

9/26/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 342 EV; 100% Win Probability

9/26/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 342 EV; 100% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Sept. 26, 2012

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model uses two forecast methods. The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls. The True Vote Model calculates vote shares based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares. The model is updated periodically for the latest state and national polls. The projections assume the election is held on the latest poll date.

Obama increased his expected electoral vote from 320 to 342 by gaining the lead in the North Carolina and Iowa polls. The expected electoral vote is based on the state win probabilities. If the election were held today, the Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation indicates that Obama would have a 100% probability of winning as he won all 500 election simulation trials. But there are six weeks to so.

Obama’s 49.2-44.3% margin in the weighted state pre-election polls is very close to his 48.9-44.9% lead in the RCP national average – a joint confirmation. His lead increased to 50-44% in the Gallup RV tracking poll (2% MoE, 3050 sample).

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. But Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted, weighted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) which exactly matched the True Vote Model. His 23 million vote margin was too big to steal. This is the whopper no one in the media talks about: Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents). View the 2008 Electoral and popular vote trend

Forecast Summary

Approximately 7% of voters are undecided and may hold the key to the election. I suspect they are mostly Democrats disillusioned with Obama but scared by Romney and Ryan. The model currently assumes an equal split of the undecided vote. If undecided voters break for Obama, he will be in a commanding position to win re-election.

The Likely Voter (LV) polls anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 56.3% True Vote share and 402 electoral votes.

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.


9/26/2012
UVA = undecided voter allocation = 50/50%
True Vote Model Obama Romney
True Vote...... 56.3% 43.7% (see model)
Expected EV.... 402 136 EV = sum(state win prob (i) * EV(i)), i=1,51
Snapshot EV.... 410 128 Sum of state EV
EV Win Prob.... 100% 0%

State Polls
Average........ 49.2% 44.3% (state vote-weighted average)
Projection..... 52.4% 47.6% (RCP Polls + UVA)
Pop. Win Prob.. 94.5% 5.5% (3.0% MoE)
Expected EV.... 342.4 195.6 EV = sum(state win prob(i) * EV(i)), i=1,51
Snapshot EV.... 343 195 Sum of winning state electoral votes

National Polls
Average........ 48.9% 44.9% (RCP poll average)
Projection..... 52.0% 48.0% (RCP polls + UVA)
Pop. Win Prob.. 97.5% 2.5% (2.0% MoE)
Gallup......... 50% 44% (3050 RV sample, 2.0% MoE)
Rasmussen...... 46% 46% (1500 LV sample, 3.0% MoE)

Monte Carlo Simulation (500 Election trials)
Projection..... 52.4% 47.6% (RCP state polls + UVA)
Mean EV........ 341.8 196.2 (average of 500 election trials)
Maximum EV..... 375 163
Minimum EV..... 309 229
EV Win Prob.... 100% 0% (500 wins/500 election trials)


Polling samples are based on prior election recorded votes – not the previous True Vote or unadjusted exit poll. 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.

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

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 he overcome the systemic fraud factor? As of today, it appears he will.

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.

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

The True Vote Model

In projecting the national vote, the required input to the TVM are returning 2008 voter turnout rates in 2012 and estimated 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate turnout . 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%). In this scenario, Obama wins by 55-45% with 380 EV and has a 100% EV win probability.

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 are generated consisting of nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) the Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. The output tables display resulting vote shares, vote margins and popular vote win probabilities.

Monte Carlo Simulation: 500 election trials

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

The projected vote share is the sum of the poll share 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.

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

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.

2008 State Exit Poll and recorded vote data is displayed in the ‘2008‘ worksheet. The latest state polls are listed in the ‘Trend/Chart” worksheet, The data is displayed graphically in the ‘PollChart’ worksheet. A histogram of the Monte Carlo Simulation (500 trials) is displayed in the ‘ObamaEVChart’ worksheet.

Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.
1. The Snapshot EV is a simple summation of the state electoral votes. It could be misleading since there may be several very close elections which favor one candidate.
2. The Mean EV is the average electoral vote of the 500 simulated elections.
3. The Theoretical (expected) EV is the product sum of all 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 the analyst to determine if the 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: 2004-2010

In 2004, I created the Election Model , and posted weekly forecasts using the latest state and national polls. The model was the first one 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. The forecast closely matched 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 2006, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats won the House by a 52-46% vote share. But the 120 Generic Poll Forecasting Regression Model indicated that they would have 56.4% – 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% – before undecided voter allocation. 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).

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

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.

Pre-election RV and LV Polls

Virtually all early pre-election polls are of Registered Voters (RV). An exception is the Rasmussen poll. It uses the 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 subsamples. The RV polls are transformed to LVs to promote an artificial “horse race” – and the poll shares invariably tighten. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) effectively understates the turnout of millions of new Democratic voters – and therefore increases the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in RV polls than in the LVs.

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

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters were allocated< They have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The loop is closed when 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.

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

 

The Walker Recall Municipal Database: A True Vote Model

Walker Recall Municipality Database: A True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
7/24/2012

The Recall True Vote Model is designed to be a data reference and forensic tool to uncover locations where fraud was likely. It contains voting data on a county, municipality and ward-by-ward basis.

The analysis shows that the election was very likely stolen. In order to achieve his 171,000 vote margin (53.1-46.3%) Walker’s required share of returning Obama voters in many municipalities were implausible. The True Vote Model indicates that Barrett had a 53-54% True Vote share (2-party) and won the election by nearly 200,000 votes.

The model produces the following for 72 counties, nearly 1900 municipalities and over 3000 Wards/Units:
1) Recorded votes and True Vote estimates
2) Walker’s share of returning Obama voters required to match the recorded vote
3) Red-shift differential between the True Vote and recorded vote
4) Voter turnout as a percent of living 2008 voters
5) Recorded and True Vote Margin

The ‘Input’ sheet contains the True Vote model for analyzing the state, a county or municipality.

Default Assumptions
Barrett’s share of returning Obama voters is calculated automatically as an incremental partisanship adjustment to his assumed 90% total Wisconsin share.

For example, in Dane County, Barrett’s share of returning Obama voters is adjusted from 90% to 95%. In Waukesha, it is adjusted to 84%.

The default assumption that Barrett won 5% of returning McCain voters is conservative. According to the WI 2010 Exit Poll, Barrett had 7%.

Barrett’s share of voters who did not vote in 2008 is set to Obama’s share.

User can now set their own Barrett shares of returning Obama and McCain voters as defaults on the Input sheet (they were originally hard coded as 90% and 5%). In the 2010 Wisconsin Governor exit poll, Barrett had just 83% of Obama voters. I believe his actual share was better than that. He also had 7% of McCain voters. If Barrett’s share of McCain voters in the recall was 7%, Walker’s required share of returning Obama voters increases from 22% to 24%.

Each of the defaults can be overridden.

Sensitivity Analysis
The tables save the time and effort of asking “what-if” vote share and turnout assumptions change to calculate total vote shares and margins.

Consider these scenarios based on the following assumptions:
1-Equal 79% turnout of Obama and McCain voters
2-New voters are 11% of total 2012 electorate
3-Barrett wins 57% of New voters

Worst Case
Barrett has 87% of returning Obama voters and 4% of McCain voters
He has 52% and wins by 100,000 votes

Most Likely Base Case
Barrett has 90% of returning Obama voters and 7% of McCain voters
He has 54.7% and wins by 232,000 votes

Best Case
Barrett has 93% of returning Obama voters and 10% of McCain voters
He has 57.3% and wins by 366,000 votes

The “Muni” database worksheet is protected from user data entry.
The built-in assumptions:
- Barrett’s default share of Obama voters is 90%, as per the “input” sheet.
- His share of McCain voters is fixed at 7%.
- There is no breakout of new voters.

These are the steps in using the model to analyze a given municipality:
1. Scroll “Muni” to locate the county
2. Check the row number of the Municipality
3. Enter the row number in the ‘Input’ sheet

These articles are from Wisconsin blogger Dennis Kern:

Walker Recall Vote IMPOSSIBLE
How Walker Stole the Recall Election

My earlier posts on the Walker Recall

July 11: True Vote Model: Implausible Walker Vote Shares Required to match the vote.
June 9: Exit Pollsters: MO Never Changes
June 6: Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Recorded vote
May 24: Is the Past Prologue?
May 3: True Vote Model Analysis

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

 

2000-2004 Presidential Elections County True Vote Model

2000-2004 Presidential Elections County True Vote Model

Richard Charnin

March 28, 2012

The database has been restructured for easier use. It is based on county recorded vote changes and 2000 and 2004 as well as National Exit Poll vote shares. It now calculates the approximate 2004 True Vote for counties in 21 states.

The 2004 County True Vote Model:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDNzZWhMcF9sS3pHRWdUZE8zdEs4aGc#gid=23

In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.4%. He won the National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%

In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit polls by 51.1-47.6%. He won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%%

The database contains Election Day recorded votes. In 2000 approximately 2.7 million votes were recorded after Election Day; in 2004 approximately 6 million were. Gore and Kerry each had 55% of the late two-party vote.

In 2000, there were approximately 6 million uncounted votes. In 2004, there were approximately 4 million. Gore and Kerry had 70-80%. Uncounted votes (Total Votes Cast) are not included in the True Vote calculations.

The number of returning 2000 voters is calculated assuming 5% voter mortality over the four year period. The default turnout assumption is that 98% of living 2000 voters voted in 2004.

The number of new voters is calculated as the difference between the 2004 recorded vote and the number of returning 2000 voters. This is just an approximation since the recorded 2000 county vote is used – not the True Vote based on total votes cast .

The Model uses adjusted 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares as a basis for calculating total state and county vote shares. The adjusted shares are applied to each county’s estimated share of new voters and returning Gore, Bush and Other voters. The weighted average of the county vote shares should closely match the calculated state True Vote.

State and county vote shares are calculated based on the differential between the unadjusted state and national exit poll shares.

The Input sheet is for data entry. Enter the state code in cell A2.

The default assumption is that 2000 voters return to vote in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted exit poll. Enter code 1 to use the 2000 recorded vote as the returning voter option. Since the unadjusted 2000 exit poll is close to the True Vote, the default option is a better choice.

The user has the option of incrementing the returning Gore voter mix percentage. The Bush share will decrease (increase) by the same percentage.

The living 2000 voter turnout rate is set to 98%, but can be changed if desired.

In order to gauge the impact of changes in vote shares, incremental changes to Kerry’s base case vote shares can be input. Bush’s shares will adjust automatically in the opposite direction (the total must equal 100%). Other third-party vote shares are unchanged.

Analyzing the results
The data is sorted by 2004 county vote. The discrepancies are displayed as vote margin (in thousands) and a percentage. The probability of fraud increases as the discrepancy increases. The county True Vote is only an estimate. It can only be determined if the ballots are hand-counted.

The correlation statistic shows the relationship between two variables and ranges from -1 to +1, where -1 is a perfectly negative correlation and +1 is perfectly positive. A near-zero correlation indicates that there is no relationship. A positive correlation indicates that both variables move in the same direction: as one variable increases (decreases), the other also increases (decreases). A negative correlation indicates just the opposite: as one variable increases (decreases) the other decreases (increases).

The model calculates the correlation statistic (relationship) between Kerry’s recorded vote share and the True Vote discrepancy. In general, there is a strong negative correlation between the variables, indicating that as Obama’s recorded county vote share increases (decreases) the discrepancy decreases (increases). This is an indication that the GOP counties are the most fraudulent (as measured by vote share margin discrepancy).

For example, in Ohio, the -0.82 correlation was very strong indicating that Bush counties were extremely fraudulent relative to Kerry counties (based on vote share margin discrepancies).

County Correlation Ratios between the Democratic Recorded Vote and
the True Vote Share Margin Discrepancy
State 2004 2008
NC -0.01 -0.72
WI -0.70 -0.50
OH -0.82 -0.50
NY -0.62 -0.45
FL -0.43 -0.79

Florida
At 8:40pm CNN showed that of 2846 exit polled, Bush led by 49.8-49.7%.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents) by 50.8-48.0%.
But at 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (52.1-47.9%) for the SAME 2862 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote a 381,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.7-46.1%, a 500,000 vote margin.

Kerry’s largest discrepancies from the True Vote were in DRE counties:
Broward, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Dade, Pinellas.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Dade Broward Palm Beach
Margin: Broward Palm Beach Volusia Polk

Ohio
At 7:30pm CNN showed that of 1963 exit polled, Kerry led by 52.1-47.9%
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2020 respondents) by 54.1-45.9%.
At 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (50.9-48.6%) for the SAME 2020 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote, a 119,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 53.1-45.5%, a 426,000 vote margin.

Ohio used Punched card machines, DREs and Optical Scanners.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Cuyahoga Franklin Montgomery Butler
Margin: Butler Warren Clermont

New York
All counties Lever machines.
Kerry won the recorded vote by 58.4-40.1%, a 1,251,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 62.1-36.2%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 63.0-35.1%, a 2,060,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Nassau Suffolk Brooklyn Queens
Margin: Nassau Suffolk Staten Island Rockand

Wisconsin
Kerry won the recorded vote by 49.7-49.3%, an 11,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 52.0-46.8%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.8-45.6%, a 217,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Waukesha Brown Sheboygan
Margin: Waukesha Brown Sheboygan Washington

Arizona
In 2000 Gore won the exit poll (47.2-46.4%) but lost the vote by 50.9-44.7%.
In 2004, Bush won the exit poll (52.8-46.3%) and the recorded vote (54.9-44.4%).

But Kerry won the True Vote by 52.0-46.2% (assuming 2000 voters returned in proportion to the 2000 exit poll). If the model is correct, there was massive election fraud (a 16% discrepancy).

Pennsylvania
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Votes: Allegheny Montgomery Bucks
Margin: Northampton York Westmoreland

 

The 2000-2004 Presidential County Recorded Vote Database

Richard Charnin

March 1, 2012

The 2000-2004 Presidential County Vote Database is a forensic spreadsheet tool for viewing, filtering, sorting and comparing county vote changes from 2000 to 2004. It is important to note that the database contains Election Day recorded votes, not the True votes. The 2004 county voting machine type is indicated.

The database has been updated. It currently consists of 21 states in a single file and includes the True Vote Model for each county.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/2000-2004-presidential-elections-county-true-vote-model/

The original database consists of two worksheets:
Part 1:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGFHdkloa0FUeUp0dmlRbFl6bjViQkE#gid=1

Part 2:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdEMxYmxrWElBeTdZWWhtMHZrSEZQa0E#gid=1

In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000. But there were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. Gore won the unadjusted exit poll by 50-44% – a six million vote margin that was close to the True Vote Model.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. There were nearly 4 million uncounted votes. Kerry  won the unadjusted exit poll by 51-47.5%. The True Vote model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

Why bother to analyze state and county recorded votes? What if a county had a near-zero percentage increase in Bush’s 2004 margin from 2000? In other words, if there was nearly equal fraud in both elections, how would we know? Well, if we have evidence of 2004 fraud in a given county, but there was no change in margin from 2000, then we can hypothesize that fraud also occurred in 2000. Conversely, if there was a change in margin in 2004, we could hypothesize that there was an increase in the fraud factor. Since Election Fraud is systemic, the 2000/2004 county vote database has applicability in other state and presidential elections.

New York had the highest level of fraud: there was a 55% average difference between comparable Kerry and Bush correlations. Florida was next at 49%, Ohio had 35%. Oregon, the only vote-by-mail 100% paper ballot state with mandated random county hand-recounts, had just a 4% difference. The results confirmed a prior analysis which indicated a) that Oregon stood alone as the only fraud-free Battleground state and b) confirmed that election fraud caused the large exit poll discrepancies in New York, Florida and Ohio- and many other states.

New York

Bush’s 2004 recorded NY county vote gain over 2000 is indeed an Urban Legend. His percentage gain in the 15 largest NY urban and suburban (Democratic) counties far exceeded those of Kerry. In 2000, Gore won the NY recorded vote by 60-35% with 5% to third parties. But Kerry won by just 58-40%, a 7% decrease in margin. 

NY voted exclusively on Lever machines which had the highest discrepancies (11%) of all voting machine types.

In 2004, Nader had less than 0.5% of the vote nationally. Since returning Nader voters preferred Kerry over Bush by 64-17%, Kerry should have won NY by 63-36% (assuming zero net defections of returning voters). In fact, he won the unadjusted exit poll by 62.1-36.2%. But his recorded margin exceeded Gore in just 6 of 62 counties.

Columbia was the ONLY COUNTY where Bush had fewer votes than he did in 2000 – an indication that Coumbia’s election had zero fraud. Bush had 12,100 votes in 2000 and 11,200 in 2004.

This graph shows Bush and Kerry percentage gains over 2000 in the 15 largest NY counties.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

The Bush Urban Legend is also illustrated in this graph which shows the implausible high (0,61) correlation between NY county population size and Bush percentage gain from 2000.
http://richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_14517_image001.gif

Florida

Gore won the FL unadjusted exit poll by a whopping 53.4-43.6% (3% to Nader et al), but Bush won by 537 votes. They were tied at 48.8% – only because the Supreme Court stopped the recount. There were nearly 200,000 uncounted spoiled ballots, a combination of undervotes, overvotes, Butterfly ballots, etc.  

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Kerry led the 2004 pre-election polls.
http://richardcharnin.com/FL04exitpoll_12679_image001.png

In 2004 Bush won again, this time by 52.1-47.9%. Returning Nader 2000 voters broke by nearly 4-1 for Kerry, who also won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-48.0%. So how did Bush do it? Well, for one thing FL voting machines were now a mix of unverifiable DREs and Optical scanners. No more punch cards. No more hanging chads. HAVA fixed that problem, so that votes could be stolen cleanly in Cyberspace. No longer would there be blood evidence at the crime scene.

The biggest Democratic counties (Palm Beach, Broward and Dade) showed  virtually no change in Bush’s margin from 2000 to 2004. But changes in county recorded votes can be misleading. Does no change mean that there was no fraud? Obviously not. Election Fraud in both 2000 and 2004 caused Gore and Kerry margins to decline at nearly the same rate. The near-zero net change in margin masks the uniform vote thefts. But the the level of fraud must have increased in counties where Bush gained the most over his 2000 vote (Brevard, Polk, Hillsborough, etc.). Margins increased by 4% in Hillsborough, 7% in Broward and 6% in Palm Beach. These counties used DRE touchscreens in 2004.

Of the 67 Florida counties, Kerry did better than Gore in just five, whereas Bush increased his margin in 62. But in Leon County there was a 10,000 increase in Kerry’s margin, his biggest county gain. Does the fact that Ion Sancho, the Election Integrity activist whose famous “Hursti Hack” demonstrated that Optical Scanners can be rigged and also happens to be the Leon County Election Supervisor, have anything to do with it? 

Oregon

This 100% paper ballot state uses Optical scanners. Vote is by mail or hand-delivery of ballots to a polling site. A hand recount of ballots is mandated for randomly selected counties. Not surprisingly, with the combination of mandated hand counts (a fraud deterrent) and high turnout, Oregon was the only Battleground state that Kerry won by a margin better than Gore.

Gore won Multnomah, Oregon’s largest county, by 104,000 votes (64.3-28.6%). But Kerry did even better. He won it by 152,000 votes (72.5-27.5%) and apparently picked up a large number of returning Nader 2000 voters. It’s very telling to compare Kerry’s expected gains in urban Multnomah to Bush’s impossible, unexpected gains in heavily Democratic NY counties.

Oregon is a 100% paper ballot state, mandates random hand recounts and enjoys heavy voter turnout. Do these factors have anything to do with Oregon being the only Battleground state in which Kerry’s winning vote share exceeded that of Al Gore?

Ohio

In 2000, Bush beat Gore by 50.0-46.5%, but the exit poll was close (48.5-47.4%). In 2004, Kerry won the exit poll by a solid 54.1-45.7% but lost the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% – quite a red-shift. Although there were many Battleground states and strong Democratic states in which vote miscounts favored Bush, Ohio was the epicenter of election fraud. The majority of its 88 counties voted on punch card machines, the rest on DREs and Optical scanners.

In 2000, Gore won Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) by 63-34%. Kerry did even better; he won by 67-33%. Kerry had a 61,000 net gain in margin. But keeping in mind that these are recorded vote shares. Based on the vast evidence of documented fraud, Gore and Kerry must have done much better than their recorded votes indicate. Bush vote gains from 2000 were highest in Butler, Warren and Clermont counties. All had numerous voting irregularities and anomalies.

Did Ken Blackwell, Secretary of State and co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign, have anything to do with Kerry losing Ohio ?