RSS

Election Fraud Slides for the “Real Deal”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 5, 2016

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
WEB/BLOG POSTS

I created this slide presentation for an interview with Jim Fetzer (on the Real Deal). It includes links to the 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model and to presentations by mathematicians confirming the Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis.

Mathematical models

Prove election fraud and confirm unadjusted exit polls.

True Vote (TVM) – plausible vote shares of estimated returning voter mix.
Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS) – sorted county precinct votes.
Voter Turnout (VTM) –  registered voter turnout  vs. exit poll Party-ID (forced to match)

Myth of 50/50 electorate

The Democrats would win every national election if votes were accurately counted.
They get an estimated 83% of the minority vote (30% of the electorate).
Therefore they need just 36% of white voters (70% of the electorate) to reach 50%.
1968- 2012: Census indicates 80 million more votes cast than recorded (uncounted).

Adjusted Polls

Pre-election polls are biased due to the Likely Voter Cutoff Model.
The LVCM eliminates newly registered and others (mostly Democratic) deemed unlikely to vote in adjusting the Registered Voter (RV) to Likely Voter (LV) polls.

Unadjusted exit polls are always fixed to match the recorded vote.
Corporate media-funded pollsters always assume ZERO fraud.

Unadjusted exit polls are not for public viewing.
In 2012, just 31 states were exit polled. Why?

2002 – HAVA (Help America Vote Act)
Installed unverifiable touchscreens; central tabulators.
Only a few states have a strong auditing process.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2014 Governor Exit Polls: Where are the Minority Voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.2, 2016

Governor exit polls  were forced to match the recorded vote in 2014 – as is always the case. But let’s take a closer look at the RACE demographic. Minority voters share of the total vote is shown, but corresponding vote shares are missing. When estimated vote shares are included, the Democrat is usually the winner.

GOP shares of white voters appear to be inflated. So the results are conservative: The Democrats most likely did better than indicated in the tables.

The Sensitivity analysis tables show the effect of Democratic shares of white voters on the total Democratic share.

Based on True Vote, Cumulative Vote and Voter Turnout models:
IL: Quinn did better than 35% of whites.
FL: Crist did better than 37% of whites and 85% of blacks.
ME: Michaud did better than 43% of whites.
WI: Burke did better than 42% of whites and 90% of blacks.
MI: Schauer did better than  40% of whites and 89% of blacks.
KS: Davis did better than 46% of Latinos

IL 1,263
Pct Quinn Rauner Grimm Quinn Rauner Grimm
White 75% 35% 61% 4% 37% 59% 4%
Black 16% 93% 7% 1% 94% 5% 1%
Latino 6% 80% 10% 10%
Asian 2% 80% 10% 10%
Other 1% 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 41.1% 46.9% 3.2% 50.0% 46.0% 4.1%
Recorded 45.6% 50.1% 3.3%
FL 2,806
Pct Crist Scott Wyllie Crist Scott Wyllie
White 69% 37% 58% 4% 39% 57% 4%
Black 14% 85% 12% 3% 94% 4% 2%
Latino 13% 58% 38% 3% 58% 38% 4%
Asian 2% 80% 10% 10%
Other 2% 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 45.0% 46.6% 3.6% 50.8% 45.2% 4.0%
Recorded 47.1% 48.2% 4.8%
ME 1,006
Pct Michaud LePage Cutler Michaud LePage Cutler
White 97% 43% 49% 9% 46% 46% 8%
Black 1% 95% 3% 2%
Latino 2% 80% 10% 10%
Asian 80% 10% 10%
Other 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 41.7% 47.5% 8.7% 47.2% 44.8% 8.0%
Recorded 43.4% 48.2% 8.4%
WI 2,316
Burke Walker  Other Burke Walker  Other
White 88% 42% 56%  2% 46% 53%  1%
Black 6% 90% 10% 95% 4%  1%
Latino 3% 80% 19%  1%
Asian 1% 80% 19%  1%
Other 2% 80% 19%  1%
Total 100% 42.4% 49.9%  0.9% 51.0% 48.0  1.0%
Recorded 46.6% 52.3% 0.9%
MI 2,232
Schauer Snyder  Other Schauer Snyder  Other
White 79% 40% 59%  1% 41% 58%  1%
Black 14% 89% 9%  2% 95% 3%  2%
Latino 3%  – 80% 20%  0%
Asian 2%  – 80% 20%  0%
Other 2%  – 80% 20%  0%
Total 100% 44.1% 47.9% 51.3% 47.6% 1.0%
Recorded 47.1% 51.0%  1.9%
KS 2,009
Pct Davis Brownback Umbehr Davis Brownback Umbehr
White 88% 46% 51% 3% 46% 51% 3%
Black 3% 93% 4% 3%
Latino 6% 46% 47% 7% 48% 45% 7%
Asian 1% 80% 13% 7%
Other 2% 80% 13% 7%
Total 100% 43.2% 47.7% 3.1% 48.5% 48.1% 3.4%
Recorded 46.2% 50.7% 3.2%

Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of Democratic shares of white voters on total vote.

FL Crist % Whites
Pct 37% 39% 41%
White 69% 25.5% 26.9% 28.3%
Black 14% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2%
Latin 13% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 49.4% 50.8% 52.2%
 IL Quinn % Whites
Pct 35% 37% 39%
White 75% 26.3% 27.8% 29.3%
Black 16% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Latin 6% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Total 100% 48.5% 50.0% 51.5%
 WI Burke % Whites
Pct 42% 44% 46%
White 88% 37.0% 38.7% 40.5%
Black 6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%
Latin 3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
Asian 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 47.5% 49.2% 51.0%
 KS Davis % Whites
Pct 46% 48% 50%
White 88% 40.5% 42.2% 44.0%
Black 3% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
Latin 6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
Asian 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 48.6% 50.3% 52.1%
 ME Michaud % Whites
Pct 43% 46% 49%
White 97% 41.7% 44.6% 47.5%
Black 1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Latin 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Asian
Other
Total 100% 44.3% 47.2% 50.1%
 MI Schauer % Whites
Pct 40% 42% 44%
White 79% 31.6% 33.2% 34.8%
Black 14% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3%
Latin 3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 50.5% 52.1% 53.7%

 

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 2, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

2014 Senate Exit Polls: Where are the minority voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.1, 2016

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

2014 Senate Exit Polls:  Where are the Minority Vote Shares?

It is instructive to view the 2014 Senate Exit Polls in  North Carolina, Alaska and Colorado. These were close elections won by the Republicans.

In each poll, vote shares for minority voters are missing, although the percentages of the total vote are listed.  As usual, the exit polls matched the recorded vote.  But when plausible minority vote share estimates are added, the Democrat is the winner.

North Carolina

Tillis (R) was a 48.8-47.3% winner.

Just 95% of the  2783 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote. 

Assume that Hagan won 70% of the missing Hispanics, Asians and Other voters. 

Hagan wins by 48.1-47.5%.

NC 2014
Exit Poll 2783 respondents MoE: 2.41%
Pct Hagan (D) Tillis (R) Haugh (I)
Whiite 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 1% na na na
Adj.Share 95% 44.6% 46.5% 3.2%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Hagan Tillis Haugh
White 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% 70% 20% 10%
Asian 1% 70% 20% 10%
Other 1% 70% 20% 10%
True share 100% 48.1% 47.5% 3.7%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%

 

Alaska

Sullivan (R) was a 48.8-45.6% winner.

Just 86% of 1,826 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume Begich won 94% of missing Blacks and just 50% of Hispanic and  Asian voters (conservative).

Begich is a 48.0-46.6% winner. 

AK 2014
Exit Poll 1826 respondents MoE: 2.98%
Race Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 5% na na na
Asian 6% na na na
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
Adj.Share 86.0% 39.7% 41.3% 5.1%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% 94% 4% 2%
Hispanic 5% 50% 47% 3%
Asian 6% 50% 47% 3%
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
True share 100% 48.0% 46.6% 5.5%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 5.6%

 

 

Colorado

Garner won the recorded vote by 48.5-46.0%.

A whopping 20% of 994 exit poll respondents vote shares  were not included in the poll. Assume that Udall won 95% of the missing Blacks, and  60% of  Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

Udall is a 49.1-47.0% winner.

CO 2014 Senate
Exit Poll 994 respondents MoE: 4.04%
Udall (D) Gardner (R) Other
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 13% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 3% na na na
Adj.Share 80% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
True Share
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% 95% 5% 0%
Hispanic 13% 60% 40% 0%
Asian 1% 60% 40% 0%
Other 3% 60% 40% 0%
True share 100% 49.1% 47.0% 4.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 1, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

2014 NC Senate: Election models indicate that it was likely stolen

Richard Charnin
Jan. 28, 2016

Election Models indicate that the 2014 North Carolina senate election was likely stolen.
Willis (R) defeated Hagan (D) by 45,000 votes (48.8-47.3%).

I. True Vote Model

Given: Obama lost NC in 2012 by 92,000 recorded votes (50.4-48.4%).
Hagan wins by 17,000 votes (48.5-47.9%)

Assume Obama won the True Vote by 185,000 votes (51.4-47.4%),
Hagan wins by 155,000 votes (50.9-45.5%) 

Base Case Assumptions
Assume Obama won in 2012 by 51.4-47.4%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters
3) Willis had  90% of Romney voters
4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012.
Hagan  wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

II. Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 41.7%- Republicans 30.4%- Independents 27.8%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 35.0%- Independents 29.0%
Party-ID was adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

Assumptions:
Party Registration split
61% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans turned out.
Hagan wins by 50.9-45.4% (161,000 votes).

III. Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 260,000 of 3.17 million votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Hagan had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Hagan wins by 206,000 votes (51.6-45.1%)

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/pub

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

KS 2014 Governor Election: Four models indicate fraud

Richard Charnin

Jan. 27, 2016

Four election models indicate that the 2014 Kansas governor election may have been stolen. Brownback (R) defeated Davis (D) by 33,000 votes (49.9-46.1%).

I Cumulative Vote Shares

PhD Mathematician Beth Clarkson has sued for the KS poll tapes

Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.

II True Vote Model

Obama lost Kansas in 2012 by 252,000 recorded votes (59.7-38.0%).

Base Case Assumptions
1) 66% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Davis had 93% of returning Obama voters
3) Brownback had  78% of Romney voters
4) Davis had 50% and Brownback 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case Scenario: Davis wins by 1,000 votes: 48.1-48.0%
Note: Obama had 42% in the final pre-election poll. If Obama’s True Vote was 41%,  then Davis won the True Vote by 50-46%.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Davis has 89% of returning Obama and 17% of Romney voters.
Davis loses by 40,000 votes with 45.7%.

Best case scenario: Davis has 97% of Obama and 21% of Romney voters.
Davis wins by 41,000 votes with 50.5%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 64% of Obama and 68% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis loses by 15,000 votes with 47.1%.

Best case scenario: 68% of Obama and 64% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis wins by 17,000 votes with 49.0%.

III Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 25%- Republicans 47%- Independents 28%
Party registration: Democrats 24.3%- Republicans 44.1%- Independents 31.6%
62.7% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 62.7% of Democrats and 62.7% of Republicans turned out.

Davis wins by 48.1-48.0%
To match the recorded vote, Brownback needed 13% of  Democrats, 79% of Republicans and 38% of Independents.

IV Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 113,000 of 962,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Davis had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Davis wins by 62,000 votes (51.2-44.8%)

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Three election models indicate that the 2014 Vermont governor election was almost stolen. Shumlin (D) defeated Milne (R) by just 2,000 votes (46.4-45.3%)

Obama won Vermont in 2012 by 95,000 recorded votes (66.1-31.0%).

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 55% turnout of Obama and 65% turnout of Romney voters
2) Shumlin had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Milne had 93% of Romney voters
4) Shumlin and Milne each had 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Shumlin won by 27,000 votes: 54.3-40.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Milne needed 22.4% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Shumlin has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 16,000 votes with 51.5%.

Best case scenario: Shumlin has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 38,000 votes with 57.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 53% of Obama and 67% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 22,000 votes with 53.0%.

Best case scenario: 57% of Obama and 63% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 32,000 votes with 55.6%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 47%- Republicans 31%- Independents 22%
59.9% of registered voters turned out.

Assumption: 59.9% of Democrats and 59.9% of Republicans turned out.
Shumlin wins by 53.4-39.2%

To match the recorded vote, Milne needed 19% of Democrats, 89% of Republicans and 40% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 11,000 of 205,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Shumlin had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Shumlin won by 55.4-38.9%.

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections
Kitzhaber (D) defeated Richardson (R ) by 85,000 votes (50.3-44.2%)

Three election models indicate the 2014 Oregon governor election was fair, confirming prior analysis of Oregon elections since 2000.

http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx

True Vote Model

Obama won Oregon in 2012 by 206,000  votes (54.2-42.1%).  

Base Case Assumptions

1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Kitzhaber had 87% of returning Obama voters
3) Richardson had  90% of Romney voters
4) Kitzhaber had 44% and Richardson 46% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Kitzhaber won by 91,000 votes: 50.3-44.2%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Kitzhaber has 83% of returning Obama and 3% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 11,000 votes with 47.6%.

Best case scenario: KItzhaber has 91% of Obama and 7% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 170,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Kitzhaber wins by 63,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Kitzhaber wins by 118,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 37.8%- Republicans 29.9%- Independents 32.3%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 24.0%- Independents 40.0%

67.5% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 67.5% of Democrats and 67.5% of Republicans turned out.
Kitzhaber wins by 50.3-44.1% (91,000 votes).

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
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,170 other followers