Richard Charnin
Oct. 26,2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

This is the ONLY model which compares pre-election vote shares and corresponding Electoral votes to the adjusted Gallup affiliation survey (40 Ind-32 Dem-28 Rep).It will be updated as often as possible.

View the model:

Clinton currently leads in 7 of the 8 published polls (Yellow cells). One (Gravis) is tied.
Using Gallup-adjusted weights (Blue cells), Trump leads in 4, Clinton leads in 4

The model uses the poll vote shares which match the published polls.
But Jill Stein must be doing much better than 1-3%.

Electoral votes for the Gallup adjusted weights:
…………Clinton Trump
Ipsos/Reuters 232 306
IBD 202 336
Rasmussen 80 458
Quinnipiac 354 184
Fox News 335 203
CNN 335 203
ABC/WashPost 459 79
Gravis 147 391

1 Comment

Posted by on October 26, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comparing Five pre-election polls: Why the Gallup voter affiliation survey is used in the 2016 Election Model

Richard Charnin
Oct. 23, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

The fact that Party-ID demographic in five current polls (see vary greatly  is a cause for concern. What is the correct mix of Democrats, Republicans and Independents? Theoretically, the National polls should have nearly identical Party-ID weightings. But they don’t, so which ones are to believed?

This summary analysis compares the poll shares  to  those obtained using the Gallup party affiliation survey  weights (currently  40% Independents, 32% Democrats and 28% Republicans).

Clinton leads the average of five pre-election polls by 43.0-40.7%. Applying the 2016 Election Model, this translates to a 302-236 average Electoral Vote win.

Using the Gallup survey  weights for each poll (using the same poll shares), Trump leads by 41.8-39.3%. He wins the average Electoral Vote by 329-209.

In the five polls, the average Party-ID is 40.8 Dem- 33.6 Rep- 25.6 Ind.  Trump leads the Independents in each poll by an average of 40-28%.

IBD/TIPP is the only  poll in which Independents are the largest group (38%) and closely approximates the Gallup affiliation survey..

View the 2016 Election Model  (with links to the five polls and the Gallup survey)

 Poll share   Electoral Vote  
Poll Party-ID Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Ipsos 42.1 39.6 298 240
Rasmussen 40.9 42.9 211 327
IBD/TIPP 39.5 42.2 202 336
Quinnipiac 47.6 39.7 444 94
Fox News 45 39 354 184
Average 43.02 40.68 301.8 236.2
 Gallup affiliation:   Poll share   Electoral Vote
40Ind;32Dem;28Rep Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Ipsos 36.4 37.7 232 306
Rasmussen 36.8 47.4 81 457
IBD/TIPP 36.5 45.4 42 496
Quinnipiac 45.4 40.5 354 184
Fox News 41.3 37.9 335 203
Average 39.28 41.78 208.8 329.2


Party ID Mix Ind Dem Rep
Ipsos 13 46 41
Rasmussen 32 40 28
IBD/TIPP 38 35 27
Quinnipiac 26 40 34
Fox News 19 43 38
Average 25.6 40.8 33.6
 Independent shares    
Poll Clinton Trump
Ipsos 23 34
Rasmussen 22 47
IBD/TIPP 28 44
Quinnipiac 38 42
Fox News 30 35
Average 28.2 40.4






Posted by on October 23, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

A Tale of Two Pre-election Polls

Richard Charnin
Oct. 21, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

This analysis illustrates how polling results (and electoral votes) are manipulated due to the over-weighting of Democrats and under-weighting of Independents. The misleading poll results are compared to the more accurate Gallup party voter affiliation weighting.

The Quinnipiac poll has Clinton leading Trump 47-40%.
Given the internal poll shares, the Party-ID split is
Ind 26%, Dem 40%, Rep 34%.
Using the Four-way Election Model, Clinton wins by 444-94 Electoral Votes.

Assuming the Gallup party affiliation survey
(Ind 40%, Dem 32%, Rep 28%):
Clinton wins by 45.4-40.5% with 354-184 EV.

The Rasmussen poll has Trump leading Clinton 43-41%.
Given the internal poll shares, the Party-ID split is
Ind 32%, Dem 40%, Rep 28%.
Using the Four-way Election Model, Trump wins by 327-211 Electoral Votes

Assuming the  Gallup party affiliation survey
(Ind 40%, Dem 32%, Rep 28%):
Trump wins in a landslide by 45.4-36.5% with 496-42 EV.


Quinnipiac Match poll
Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 26% 38% 42% 8% 12%
Dem 40% 91% 4% 2% 3%
Rep 34% 4% 80% 10% 6%
Total 100% 47.64% 39.72% 6.28% 6.36%
Votes 129,106 61,506 51,281 8,108 8,211
Elect Vote 538 444 94 0 0
Quinnipiac Match Gallup
Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 40% 38% 42% 8% 12%
Dem 32% 91% 4% 2% 3%
Rep 28% 4% 80% 10% 6%
Total 100% 45.44% 40.48% 6.64% 7.44%
Votes 129,106 58,666 52,262 8,573 9,605
Elect Vote 538 354 184 0 0
Rasmussen Match poll 41 43 5 3
Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 32% 22% 47% 18% 13%
Dem 40% 77% 15% 3% 6%
Rep 28% 11% 78% 8% 3%
Total 100% 40.92% 42.88% 8.80% 7.40%
Votes 129,106 52,830 55,360 11,361 9,554
Elect Vote 538 211 327 0 0
Rasmussen Match Gallup
Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 40% 22% 47% 18% 13%
Dem 32% 77% 15% 3% 6%
Rep 28% 11% 78% 8% 3%
Total 100% 36.52% 45.44% 10.08% 7.96%
Votes 129,106 47,149 58,666 13,014 10,277
Elect Vote 538 42 496 0 0



Polling Data

Four-way 2016 Election Model


Posted by on October 21, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , ,

Pre-election Presidential polls: preparing for a stolen election

Pre-election Presidential polls: preparing for a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Oct. 19, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

The media wants voters to believe that Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls – while maintaining that the Russians are working with Wikileaks and  are preparing to hack the voting machines for Trump. But the media won’t discuss the history of election fraud going back decades on proprietary voting machines and central tabulators. And that 2016 Election fraud is proven by exit poll discrepancies  favoring Clinton in 24 of 26 states.

The latest Fox poll shows Clinton leading  45-39% over Trump. Johnson and Jill Stein have 5% and 3%, respectively.The Party-ID weights are 43% Dem, 38% Rep and 19% Ind.  Candidate vote shares were calculated to match the poll results.

In order to match the Fox poll, Clinton had approximately 35% of Independents and Trump 30%. Approximately 17% of Independents support Johnson and Stein while 18% (can we consider them Independents?) show no preference..

But the latest Gallup party affiliation survey indicates that 40% are Independents,   32% Democrats and 28% Republicans. Using the survey percentages, and assuming that 50% of Independents support Johnson and Stein, then Trump is leading Clinton by 36-35%, with 16% for Stein and 13% for Johnson.

Applying the Gallup weights adjusted proportionally to each of  15 battleground states, Trump leads by 36.9-34.5% and wins 13  states with a 142-51 lead in electoral votes.

In anticipation of the final presidential debate, it is instructive to recall the Democratic primaries. Eleven of 26 exit poll discrepancies exceeded the margin of error – a 1 in 77 billion probability. 

Wikileaks documents provide confirmation that the primaries were rigged against Sanders while Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries.

Other than Fox News, the Clinton email scandal is ignored in the mainstream media. They would rather focus on  Trump’s locker room comments years ago- which are no different than the language used every day on cable and in films.  The media would rather dwell on this non-issue than discuss the monumental Clinton/DNC scandals unfolding every day.


View the  spreadsheet calculations and source data links.

The Fox Poll

Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein na
Ind 19% 35% 30% 10% 7% 18%
Dem 43% 85% 5% 2% 2% 6%
Rep 38% 5% 82% 6% 2% 5%
 Calc 100% 45.1% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0% 7.9%
 Poll 100% 45.0% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0% 8.0%

 True Vote: Gallup party affiliation survey 

Gallup  Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 40% 20% 30% 20% 30%
Dem 32% 80% 5% 5% 10%
Rep 28% 5% 80% 12% 3%
 Calc 100% 35.0% 36.0% 13.0% 16.0%
 Poll 92% 45.0% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0%
 Diff 8% -10.0% -3.0% 8.0% 13.0%

15 Battleground states

Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 38.7% 20% 30% 20% 30%
Dem 31.6% 80% 5% 5% 10%
Rep 29.7% 5% 80% 12% 3%
 Calc 100% 34.5% 37.0% 12.9% 15.7%
 Poll 95.0% 45.4% 42.9% 5.4% 1.3%
 Diff 5.0% -10.9% -6.0% 7.5% 14.4%
 Gallup   Party-ID
EV Dem Rep Ind
AZ 11 22.8% 27.3% 49.8%
CO 9 24.4% 26.2% 49.5%
FL 29 30.6% 27.8% 41.5%
GA 16 30.8% 34.2% 35.0%
IA 6 24.5% 25.4% 50.0%
ME 4 25.2% 21.5% 53.3%
MI 16 34.7% 29.4% 35.9%
MN 10 34.7% 31.0% 34.3%
MO 10 30.8% 35.0% 34.2%
NC 15 32.9% 24.2% 42.9%
NV 6 31.3% 27.5% 41.2%
OH 18 32.4% 33.4% 34.2%
PA 20 39.1% 29.2% 31.8%
VA 13 31.6% 33.4% 35.0%
WI 10 33.9% 32.6% 33.5%
 Total Evote  193
Average 30.6% 29.2% 40.1%
Wtd Avg 31.6% 29.7% 38.7%
 Polls       Trump Clinton
 10/19 Clinton Trump Johnson Stein EVote EVote
AZ 42 44 9 1 11
CO 45 37 10 3 9
FL 48 44 4 1 29
GA 42 48 4 0 16
IA 39 43 6 2 6
ME 44 36 9 3 4
MI 47 37 7 4 16
MN 43 43 4 2 tie tie
MO 42 47 4 1 10
NC 48 47 4 0 15
NV 47 40 7 0 6
OH 45 45 6 1 tie tie
PA 47 41 6 1 20
VA 46 43 6 0 13
WI 47 39 1 3 10
 Total EV          43 122 
Average 44.8 42.3 5.8 1.5
Wtd Avg 45.4 42.9 5.4 1.3
 Gallup Party_ID       Trump Clinton
 True Vote Clinton Trump Johnson Stein EVote EVote
AZ 29.6% 38.0% 14.4% 18.1% 11
CO 30.7% 37.0% 14.3% 18.1% 9
FL 34.2% 36.2% 13.2% 16.3% 29
GA 33.4% 39.4% 12.6% 14.6% 16
IA 30.9% 36.6% 14.3% 18.2% 6
ME 31.9% 34.5% 14.5% 19.1% 4
MI 36.4% 36.0% 12.4% 15.1% 16
MN 36.2% 36.8% 12.3% 14.7% 10
MO 33.2% 39.8% 12.6% 14.4% 10
NC 36.1% 33.9% 13.1% 16.9% 15
NV 34.7% 35.9% 13.1% 16.3% 6
OH 34.4% 38.6% 12.5% 14.5% 18
PA 39.1% 34.9% 11.8% 14.3% 20
VA 34.0% 38.8% 12.6% 14.7% 13
WI 35.5% 37.8% 12.3% 14.4% 10
Total EV  142  51
Average 34.0% 36.9% 13.1% 16.0%
Wtd Avg 34.5% 36.9% 12.9% 15.7%

Posted by on October 19, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The New Scanning Systems, FRACTION MAGIC and Humboldt Cty, CA

Richard Charnin
Oct.15, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

From Lori Grace of The New Scanning Systems

Both ES&S and the newer Dominion Voting Systems (formerly Diebold) can take photos of ballots. (Pictured above is the ES&S 850.) Two ES&S (Election Systems & Software) scanners which have excellent audit capabilities have been installed in thousands of precincts throughout the U.S. They are the ES&S DS850, a high speed scanner used for absentee/vote-by-mail and the ES&S DS200, which is used in precincts. Additionally, Dominion Voting Systems’ newer scanners have ballot images as well. They are ImageCast Central and ImageCast Precinct, which have ballot images. Even most DRE’s (Direct Recording Electronic) create ballot images as well. And, they too can be studied to verify election results!

Fraction Magic

Bev Harris has been studying how votes are fractionalized. She call it “Fraction Magic” When adding up votes, the tabulator can fractionalize the votes if it is programmed that way. She has been working with John Brakey on how to PRESERVE BALLOT IMAGES. Bev Harris has happily discovered that images of the ballots CANNOT BE FRACTIONALIZED. That is why they must be preserved. Please read more by clicking on the following link:

In any election where scanners are used, these systems could create a higher level of transparency and reliability if we prevent the ballot images from being destroyed and prevent the audit file system called Cast Vote Record (CVR) from being disconnected. Many states currently have these systems, now capable of capturing ballot images and numbering ballots. This leaves an opening for easier verification of election results. States that have these ES&S scanners in some of their counties include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and others. California has some Dominion scanners that take ballot images.These scanners are also approved of by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

To find out what type of voting equipment your county is using, click on “The Verifier” and find your county:

Please note, that information is over a year old. To be certain of the machines used in our own back yard, call your election department to find out what machines are being used in this election cycle.

The Trachtenberg System: Humboldt County, CA

Why was ballot imaging and audit files developed by ES&S, a large voting machine company?
ES&S and Dominion were modeled after the Trachtenberg system in Humboldt County, California, which was featured by the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity ( back in 2010. Please check under “Voting Systems” on the website for more details. The Trachtenberg system is comprised of a high speed scanner that takes pictures of ballots and assigns a number to them.In this video, produced by, Mitch Trachtenberg, the developer of the Trachtenberg Election Verification System, talks about how it was created and how it works to protect us from election fraud:

Apparently, ES&S realized this was likely a future trend in voting machine software. The company developed its own system based on concepts from software programmers and election integrity activists Harry Hursti, Bev Harris, Mitch Trachtenberg and Larry Moore. Moore developed a voting system called “Clear Ballot,” which is a refined approach to verifying elections using ballot images. Here is a short Video on how the Clear Ballot system works:

The Politics of Destroying Ballot Images all over the United States

It is very interesting to learn that audit files appear to be being disconnected and verifiable ballot images appear to be being destroyed all over the United States. You might ask yourself why is this? ES&S has cut short their advertising of this feature which they put in DS850 and DS200. The company introduced it as a feature that would help the company sell more scanners but received significant negative feedback from election departments. ES&S then drastically reduced their advertising of this imaging feature, but still kept it in the machines that were also certified by the EAC. (The U.S. Election Assistance Commission)

Why would registrars (election directors) dislike this feature? There are several potential reasons:
1. The, hopefully, rare occasion of malicious intent on the part of the registrar or their supervisor. The ballot images could be destroyed so that the hacked computer vote totals would be the only evidence of who won an election.
2. Recounts can be very stressful for registrars. The pressures for fast results come from the media, concerned and often upset citizens and the candidates. Despite the pressures, recounts usually take several days, which includes valuable staff time at the registrar’s office.
3. A registrar might fear repercussions when a substantial difference shows up in their county. Registrars might be concerned that others will perceive that they were not doing their job. Additionally, the discrepancy might affect a future promotion for them or a much worse outcome. They might end up in court trying to explain the differences in the vote totals.

Pima County Arizona: A place where ballot images were destroyed regularly
Many registrars/election directors in Arizona have objected to the audit file and have disabled that function. They actually destroy the ballot images. Pima County, Arizona kept it a secret from their own Election Integrity Commission (PCEIC) for three elections over eight months. Here is a link to a short video clip documenting when PCEIC members found out their eight months of deliberation were over the predicament of ballot images already destroyed:

The following five-minute clip lays out how the ballot images that Pima County destroyed are good for auditing and election. Link to YouTube:

The Happy Story of Humboldt County California and Its Highly Popular Registrar

In Humboldt County, California, Carolyn Crnch was the Registrar when the Trachtenberg system was originally invented. No recounts were requested during her terms of office! In fact Carolyn Crnch was for years voted the most appreciated and popular elected official in Humboldt County because she supported election transparency. People would stop her on the streets and share with her for years how happy they were that she was their registrar! What a wonderful life she got to live as an elected political official!

Left to right: Tom Stanionis, Lori Grace, Carolyn Crnich, Mitch Trachtenberg and Kevin Collins, champions of election transparency!

In 2010, the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity awarded Carolyn Crnich for her leading role in supporting transparency in elections. Local Humboldt activist Kevin Collins, Tom Stanionis from Yolo County, and Mitch Trachtenberg were also given awards for their roles in creating this transparent system of vote counting. Kelly Sanders followed Crnich’s tradition after her service as registrar. I have found that elected registrars are more attentive to their electorate with respect to vote counts. It is the hope of election integrity activists that elected registrars could become the norm in our country. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. Here is a Vimeo about the Trachtenberg System from

For those of you who prefer to learn about this ballot capturing scanner, please watch Wisconsin election integrity activists perform a precinct-based recount using the ES&S DS200 scanner and clickers. In this training session for election integrity activists, you can see once again how pleased people are to be included in recounting a vote, even if it’s only a training program! Again, it is a shame that other counties in Wisconsin do not protect the vote. Maybe Scott Walker would not have been re-elected if voters had been able to use a transparent system. (The last five minutes are particularly important).

Some stories that would not have to have been written had ballot images been able to be examined by concerned voters:

This article by Richard Charnin  asserts that “Shameless DNC Election Rigging – Approximately 15% Of Bernie’s Votes Were Flipped To Clinton In California.

Bernie Sanders had 71% of the vote in Humboldt County- his best vote share of 58 California counties:

Also here is the analysis by John Brakey of AUDIT-AZ of How the California Presidential Primary was Stacked, Stripped and Flipped:

Election activist John Brakey and attorney William Risner assert that destroying ballot images is against Federal law: Federal law 52 U.S.C § 20701 requiring retention of federal election materials, provides a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and one year in jail for premature destruction of that material (was formerly 42 U.S.C § 1974).

For the November elections, Brakey and Risner recommend the following strategy:
File a public record request (ASAP) asking for ballot images for the last and the next election. The request should include other critical documents like the Cast Vote Record (CVR). We can provide a draft of what to request.

If ballot images are or have been destroyed then file a special action Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is usually easy to request.

If they refuse your public records request for “ballot images,” then file another special action in the form of a Mandamus Act. When you win they have to pay all expenses and legal fees.

Additional efforts that may be necessary and are suggested by AUDIT-AZ member Mickey Duniho, a retired former NSA Cryptologist for 37 years. His recommendations are being added to our TRO.

Do not transfer results from the DS850 to the central count computer until election day;

Print the cast vote record serial number on each ballot so that an audit can link back to the original ballot as per how the system was federal certified by EAC;

Mark every storage box containing ballots with the range of serial numbers contained in the box, so that an audit can easily find the box containing a ballot of interest.

There is a lot of reliable evidence if ballot images are not destroyed and if recounts are initiated using the ES&S audit file. With respect to this election, there are many of these scanners in the swing states.

In the interest of fair and transparent elections, it is our hope that citizens and interested attorneys will call upon their states to retain the ballot images and invite citizens and interested election officials to do recounts when they are concerned about their results.

With hope for a democracy we can trust!

Editorial note by Lori Grace:

The final solution that we all would want is paper ballots that are counted ideally by people in elections that can be fully observed and audited.We know that this will not be our option for this year. We can only put out this intention. Hopefully, the United States will one day become more like Germany, Ireland, Iceland , the Netherlands and Switzerland.


Posted by on October 15, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Oct. 12, 2016: Online debates, focus groups and strange pre-election polls

Richard Charnin
Oct.12, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

Trump led 77-22% in the latest online debate polls of 4 million respondents. He had 59% in the online polls after the first debate. Clinton won the CNN “scientific” poll  of 537 respondents by 57-34%.

But the CNN poll indicated  that Trump did better than expected (Better 63%; Worse 21%; Same 15%). This confirms Trump’s 18% improvement in the online polls from the first debate.

In a CNN focus group, a participant reported: After the debate, they asked all of us in the focus group if we were decided on a candidate. Out of 28 panel members, 5 said they were decided on Clinton, 2 said they were decided on Trump, and 12 said they were going to vote 3rd party. But once they saw the response, they reshot the segment and replaced “3rd party” with “still undecided”.

The Frank Luntz focus group came up with an interesting result to the question:Who are you willing to vote for? Four Clinton voters and five undecideds switched to Trump.

Before the debate Hillary: 8: Trump: 9. After: Hillary: 4; Trump: 18

The latest NBC/WSJ Poll of 447 likely voters shows Clinton surging to an 11 point lead.But just like the other mainstream media pre-election polls, Independent Party ID percentages conflict with the Gallup Party Affiliation Survey.

Is there an NBC pollster Conflict of interest?

NBC Party ID Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 43.0% 94.0% 4.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Rep 36.0% 4.0% 80.0% 1.0% 15.0%
Ind 12.0% 35.0% 37.0% 10.0% 18.0%
Match 91.0% 46.1% 35.0% 2.0% 8.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%

Pre-election polls ask voters whether they lean to the Democrat or the Republican. But Bernie Sanders won the vast majority of Independents who will likely  vote for  Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Estimated True Vote Model

Model Gallup Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 32.0% 80.0% 5.0% 10% 5.0%
Rep 28.0% 5.0% 85.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Ind 40.0% 20.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5.0%
VOTE 100.0% 35.0% 35.4% 24.6% 5.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%

Posted by on October 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin

Oct. 7, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 

The 2016 Democratic primaries have finally awakened the public to Election Fraud. Millions of voters who were unaware or in denial came to realize that our election system was rigged and that the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

The media and its cadre of exit poll naysayers in the corporate media don’t dare mention the third-rail of American politics – election fraud. The media pundits remain silent on electronic vote rigging. They maintain that the exit polls are inaccurate and call truth-seeking activists conspiracy buffs.

The media is silent on the 2015 Year in Elections report, an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney. The report ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies in evaluating the  integrity of 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide.

This book focuses largely on exit polls since they are the focus of virtually all naysayer arguments. But cumulative vote share analysis is based on actual vote counts and is a companion method. The two mathematical methods confirm each other and overwhelmingly prove election fraud. The State Department relies on exit polls in elections overseas to check for fraud if the discrepancies exceed 2%. There is no such check in the U.S.

Overwhelming evidence shows that Sanders won the primaries, despite the 3 million Clinton vote margin repeated endlessly in the media. He won the vast majority of 18-34 year-old voters.  His positions on Wall Street corruption, universal health care, eliminating student debt, etc. made him an overwhelming favorite among young voters.



Posted by on October 7, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis