Proving Election Fraud: Cumulative vote shares (2014 MD Governor)

Richard Charnin

Feb.27, 2015

Look inside the books:

Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

In previous posts, cumulative vote share analysis (CVA) applied to the 2014 Florida, Wisconsin and South Dakota governor elections strongly indicated they were fraudulent. This is a corresponding CVA for the 2014 Maryland governor election.

**In general, vote switching occurs in the largest precincts of highly Republican counties. It is minimal in small GOP counties which have just a handful of Democratic votes. A small percentage of votes are switched in the big urban Democratic counties, but the number switched is high.**

The early vote shares in smaller GOP rural precincts favor the Republican as expected, but there is a counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares as we move into bigger (presumably urban Democratic) precincts. As the Law of Large Numbers takes effect, one would expect a convergence to nearly constant margin (parallel lines) with a very slight Democratic increase in slope.

The cumulative vote trend moved to the GOP in each of the following elections

-Florida: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/2014-florida-governor-election-fraud-cumulative-precinct-vote-shares/

-Wisconsin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/

-South Dakota: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/south-dakota-2014-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

Calculating cumulative precinct vote shares:

1- Precinct votes for selected counties are sorted in ascending order by vote size.

2- Each precinct’s votes are added to the cumulative sum of the smaller precincts.

3- Cumulative vote shares are calculated.

4- Vote shares (Y) are displayed graphically for cumulative vote totals (X).

Given the nature of voting patterns, one would reasonably expect that smaller (rural) cumulative vote shares would favor Republicans and larger (municipal) shares would trend to the Democrats. But due to the LLN, the vote share trend lines should be nearly parallel at 50% of the total vote.

**The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) suggests that as the number of precinct votes increase, the cumulative vote share margin should approach a constant value.
**

**In the Maryland race, the Republican Hogan’s cumulative 2-party vote share increased from 50.3% at 25% of the total, to 51.7% at 50% and 53.6% at the final 100%. The 3.3% increase from 25% to 100% is an estimate of the percentage of votes that may have been switched on Election Day.** https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17SpMcLyJ0607RyasTG4tRqrFmyDEKmEG45DKGGLZFmA/edit#gid=1626337891

Over the past ten years, I have developed a number of models for analyzing election fraud. Precinct Cumulative Vote share analysis is a recent addition to the toolkit.

-True Vote Model (TVM): plausible returning voters and current election exit poll vote shares. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-exit-poll-smoking-gun-how-did-you-vote-in-the-last-election/

-Exit Poll discrepancies: Probability analysis of deviations between unadjusted exit polls and the recorded vote (all exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:

Alleghany

Anne_Arundel

Baltimore County

Baltimore City

Frederick

Harford

Howard

Montgomery

Wicomico