RSS

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

Richard Charnin
May 23, 2016

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

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

The Election Model estimates plausible state vote shares and calculates the electoral vote assuming a three-way race between Clinton, Sanders and Trump. It is not a forecast. It is meant to illustrate a possible scenario given certain assumptions of Party-Id and corresponding vote shares.

The model is flexible so that one easily change input vote shares and the Party-ID split. State vote shares and electoral votes are automatically calculated.

The model projects Bernie Sanders as the winner with 308 electoral votes assuming he wins 50% of Independents and 40% of Democrats. And of course, we assume a fair election and Sanders is on the ballot in all the states.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democrat,35% Republican and 24% Independent. Current surveys indicate that the current split is 29D-21R-50I – a sharp increase in self-identified Independents.

Methodology
1-State Party-ID is adjusted proportionate to the change in National Party ID from 2014.
For example, Illinois 2014 Party-ID (47D-35R-18I) was adjusted to 40.6D-24.8R-34.6I.
2-The input National Party-ID vote shares are applied to each state’s  Party-ID split.
3-The total Electoral vote is calculated.

Case I: Assumptions
National Party ID: 35D-25R-40I (conservative)
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 10%; Trump 85%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 30%; Trump 20%

Sanders defeats Trump by 35.3-32.8%, a 4.2 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 308-219 EV

CASE I  Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 35% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 25% 5% 10% 85%
Ind 40% 50% 30% 20%
Total 100% 35.25% 32.00% 32.75%
Electoral Vote 538 308 11  219

Case II: Assumptions 
National Party-ID: Dem 29D- 21R-50I.
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 5%; Trump 90%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 25%; Trump 25%

Sanders defeats Trump by 37.7-34.3%, a 4.3 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 329-209.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 
Sanders’ vote share over a range of assumptions. He wins 10 of 12 scenarios.

2016 Estimated  
CASE II Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 29% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 21% 5% 5% 90%
Ind 50% 50% 25% 25%
Total 100% 37.65% 28.05% 34.30%
Electoral vote 538   329 209 
Sanders% Dem  
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%  50.0%
Sanders % Ind Sanders
55% 38.7% 40.2% 41.6%  43.1%
50% 36.2% 37.7% 39.1%  40.6%
45% 33.7% 35.2% 36.6%  38.1%
Trump 
55% 33.3% 31.8% 30.4%  28.9%
50% 35.8% 34.3% 32.9%  31.4%
45% 38.3% 36.8% 35.4%  33.9%
Sanders Margin
55% 5.5% 8.4% 11.3%  14.2%
50% 0.5% 3.4% 6.3%  9.2%
45% -4.6% -1.7% 1.3%  4.2%
Sanders Margin (000)
55% 7,036 10,780 14,524  18,268
50% 581 4,325 8,069  11,813
45% -5,874 -2,130 1,614  5.358
 
12 Comments

Posted by on May 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 2016 

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

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

 

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%

 

 
35 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2004 Stolen presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic primaries

2004 Presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin
May 15, 2016

This post compares the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic primaries. There were 50 states exit polled in 2004  and 26 primaries polled in 2016 as of May 14. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%, a 3 million vote margin. Kerry won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million margin.

The following states flipped from Kerry in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA. Kerry needed FL or OH to win.

In 2004, the average exit poll margin of error was 3.43%
In 2016, the average exit poll margin of error is 3.52%

In 2004, 23 of 50 exit polls (46%) exceeded the margin of error .
In 2016, 12  of 26  (46%) exceeded the margin of error.

In 2004, 22  of 50 (44%) exceeded the margin of error for Kerry.
In 2016, 11 of 26  (42%)  exceeded the MoE for Sanders. The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion

In 2004, 42 of 50  (84%) shifted to Bush in the vote.  The probability is 1 in 1.7 million.
In 2016, 24 of 26  (92%) shifted to Clinton in the vote. The probability  is 1 in 190,000.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Primaries: Hillary wins the lottery

Richard Charnin
May 12, 2016

Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share has exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV. The probability P that at least 11 exit polls would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

P = 1 in 76.8 BILLION = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,0.025,true)

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

The Margin of Error  (MoE) is based on the number of respondents and  the vote shares:
MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),   where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents, 1.3 is the exit poll cluster factor adjustment. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.

The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution The probability is based on the difference (DIFF) between the exit poll share (EP) and recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF=MoE, the probability is 97.5%.

P = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)

West Virginia

The results strongly suggest election fraud.  There were 734 respondents in the unadjusted exit poll and 763 in the adjusted final (forced to match the recorded vote). How could Sanders vote share decline by 6% with just 29 additional respondents? How could Other candidates vote share change by 7.5%?

Unadjusted:734 respondents Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 47% 59% 36% 5%
Female 53% 56% 40% 4%
Total 100% 57.4% 38.1% 4.5%
2-party  100% 60.1% 39.9%
Adjusted: 763 Forced to match recorded vote
Male 47% 53% 35% 12%
Female 53% 50% 38% 12%
Total 100% 51.4% 36.6% 12.0%
2-party  100% 58.4% 41.6%

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll      
Unadjusted -1323 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted Forced to match the recorded vote
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Summary Table

Exit poll margin of error, Sanders recorded vote share, Sanders exit poll,  difference between the exit poll and recorded vote and the estimated probability of fraud. Primaries in which the exit poll exceeded the recorded vote by at least the margin of error (at least 97.5% probability of fraud) are shown in bold.

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ (Yavapai) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
 
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%

 

 
27 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System

Richard Charnin
May 5, 2016

Tim Robbins, a fine actor and dedicated progressive activist, wrote this article in the Huffington Post. We need more of his kind.

“Going into Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Indiana, polls showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by around 7 percent. The final tally had Sanders up by 6 percent, a 13 point difference that seems to follow a pattern of polling discrepancies in this primary process that are quite troubling. A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve? It certainly did with Joshua Holland, who wrote in Raw Story that I was involved with a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism.” He then goes on to refute the claims of election fraud with seemingly empirical statistical evidence. Now, I am not a mathematician. But Richard Charnin is. He has two master’s degrees in applied mathematics and has followed presidential elections since 1952. He took issue with Mr. Holland’s article. I defer to his expertise: “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland.”

Read the rest of the article here. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Inline image

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

Richard Charnin
May 5, 2016

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
Election Fraud Slides

This is an analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

The probability is a function of the 2-party exit poll share, 2-party recorded vote share and the margin of error  (MoE). An exit poll cluster effect (30%) is added to the MoE formula: 

MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),
where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents.

There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.
Ten (n) of the N= 25 polls exceeded the margin of error.The probability is calculated using the Binomial distribution.  P = 1 in 4.5 Billion = BINOMDIST(9,25,.025,true))

The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution. The probability  is based on the difference (DIFF)  between the exit poll share (EP) and the recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF-MoE = 0, the probability is 97.5%.
Prob = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)

The total primaries average probability of  fraud is 97.4%.  The 3.5% average DIFF is equal to the  average MoE.

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Note the WI 63.6% exit poll in my calculation differs from the 56.0% exit poll result provided by CNN. A screenshot indicated that Sanders had a 68% share of white voters. His share of whites was reduced to 59% in the adjusted exit poll. In addition, according to the 2014 census, whites comprised 92.4% of registered WI voters The CNN adjusted poll indicated that 83% were whites. I used a conservative 88% in the calculation.

Race Percent Sanders Clinton
White 88.0% 68.0% 32.0%
Non-white 12.0% 31.0% 69.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 63.6% 36.4%

Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll shares. Diff = Exit Poll – Recorded vote

State MoE Recorded Exit Poll Diff – MoE Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 2.2% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% -1.7% 87.3%
AZ 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 18.2% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% -2.0% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% -1.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 2.1% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% -1.4% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% -0.5% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 0.5% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% -4.0% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% -0.9% 92.1%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% -2.4% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 1.3% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% -2.1% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -3.7% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 2.4% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 1.9% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -9.1% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% -2.0% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 2.1% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% -1.4% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 0.7% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% -1.3% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% -2.1% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 3.9% 100.0%
Average 3.48% 42.43% 45.89% -0.02% 97.42%
 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

Election Fraud:  Response to Joshua Holland

Richard Charnin
April 29,2016

Last week,  actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies . And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance.

Joshua Holland wrote a response in The Nation. He followed  with another piece in Raw Story: On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet

Monday, actor Tim Robbins caused a stir when he tweeted out a Facebook meme, charging that CNN and The New York Times are blind to a massive conspiracy going on right beneath their noses. It had close to 1,000 retweets when Robbins apparently deleted it.

A quick glance is enough to know that there are problems with the meme. The exit poll numbers are wrong. In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results. In Alabama, CNN reports the exit polls showing Clinton with a 57-point margin, the Facebook meme claims it was 44.7 points, and the final result was 60.4 percent.

But where did Tim Robbins come up with these numbers? I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing. Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, Tim Robbins explained that, “exit polls are historically pretty accurate,” and “are a heads-up on vote tampering.” Turn-trout agrees, writing, “Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against, and rough indicator of, the degree of election fraud.”

This is also the basis of claims by Wasserman and Fitrakis – who point to the precision of German exit polling to emphasize the point – and Steven Freeman, a Penn State psychologist who authored the book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count.

(Note:  Steve Freeman is not a psychologist. He holds a PhD from MIT’s Sloan School of Management where he teaches research methods and survey design).

So there you have it. They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s especially true of the internet. Here we have an example of an actor citing a comedian who picked up a claim from an an anonymous Reddit user citing preliminary exit poll data put together by a JFK conspiracy theorist. Bringing it all full circle is The Hill, which ran a story titled, “Actor Tim Robbins blames Sanders losses on ‘voter fraud,’” which will no doubt be shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I attempted to debunk allegations of widespread election fraud by the Clinton campaign that have been swirling around on social media. My argument was an appeal to common sense: If Hillary Clinton entered the race with a very large lead in the national polls and an enormous amount of support from Democratic Party activists and elected officials, as she did, and then quickly built up a significant lead in pledged delegates, as she did, then at no time since the start of the race, regardless of how unscrupulous her campaign might be, would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning.

My response:

Holland called it a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism”?  When someone uses the conspiracy meme,  I have concluded based on 15 years of posting that the author will proceed with misinformation and factual omission.

For the record, I have two masters degrees in applied mathematics and have followed presidential elections since 1952.

Holland said that the exit poll results are “wrong”.  Really? What was the basis for that statement?  He has obviously not viewed the data downloaded from CNN. Holland called the numbers “bullshit”. That says it all. The articles are biased and misleading and  will not fool those who are aware of the facts  and  the math that proves election fraud.

Edison Research

Holland interviewed  Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus.  Lenski  does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts.  He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland wrote that  Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

 Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does.  If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

1988-2008 Presidential Exit Polls

In spreadsheets linked from my blog, I provide 1988-2008 historical presidential vote and unadjusted exit poll data.  The Democrats led the exit polls by 52-42% but led the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the 8% discrepancy is one in trillions. Holland does not have a clue about Probability and Statistics 101. He does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The data is available if he would care to truly investigate. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

The data shows that 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008 exceeded the margin of error – and 131 moved in a “redshift” to the GOP. The probability is ZERO: E-116. That’s 116 zeros after the decimal. Holland does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy. He fails to see the significance of that fact.

The primaries

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders led hand-counted precincts in Massachusetts   by 17%, while machine counted precincts went to Clinton by 2%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

The CNN NY Primary exit poll indicated that  Sanders had 48% (officially he had 42.1%). But he may have done better than 48% since ALL exit polls are adjusted throughout the day  to the recorded vote. And hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised  when their registrations were flipped or dropped altogether. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

There was an 11.8% discrepancy between the NY exit poll  (52-48%) and the recorded vote (57.9-42.1%). The probability of the discrepancy is 1 in 120,000. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in 21 of 23 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true).  Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 9 of the 23 primaries. The probability of this result being due to chance:
P= 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23,0.025,false). Holland fails to see the significance of that.

As usual, in the recent CT, MD and PA primaries, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

This is how the Pollsters forced a match to the Indiana recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

The mainstream media (including The Nation) won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD. They never discuss malicious, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators that were built to flip the votes. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Will Holland look at the evidence which proves that the primaries are being stolen from Sanders and write about it?

Inline image

 

 Perhaps he will learn something and see the significance of these posts:  
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/1988-2008-unadjuste…/  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

Note: I challenge Holland to try to refute  the data and analysis in these books:
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
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

Fitrakis and Wasserman

Holland criticized  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserstein, both well-respected and prominent activists who have written books on Election Fraud. He wrote:

That didn’t sit well with Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis, whose earlier piece for The Free Press, “Is the 2016 election already being stripped & flipped?,” I had mentioned briefly in the column. They’ve now published a lengthy broadside accusing me, and The Nation, of not being able to handle the truth when it comes to “election theft.” (It’s an odd charge, given that my Nation colleague Ari Berman has done some of the best reporting in the country on vote suppression.)

It’s unfortunate that Wasserman and Fitrakis didn’t engage my argument (or link to my piece so that readers might judge it for themselves). Instead, they waved away the idea that looking at motive is a legitimate way of evaluating the likelihood that a crime has been committed, writing that the argument was “a bit hard to follow.”

Fitrakis and Wasserman join these very serious problems with innuendo and thin evidence to claim that virtually all elections, including the 2016 primaries, are rigged. They dismiss those of us who don’t buy their claims as being incapable of handling the truth. But skepticism goes both ways, and true skeptics require more concrete evidence than Fitrakis and Wasserman are able to offer.

Free Press: Professor Fitrakis flunks Holland.

Fitrakis and Wasserman responded: 
 Is Hillary Stealing the Nomination? Will Bernie Birth a Long-Term Movement?
 Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News 4/27/16
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36568-is-hillary-stealing-the-nomination-will-bernie-birth-a-long-term-movement

In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona lawsuit.But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies’ the right to vote in November.

At this point, we’re not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), Ari Berman of The Nation, and others.But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark minutes. All that could happen again in 2016.

Over the years we’ve respected the work of The Nation’s Josh Holland, who’s expressed concern about our reporting on indications of irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie. But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we’d say so in direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004. We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we’d like to avoid the usual circular firing squad. Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our good friend Mark Hertsgaard. Mark’s writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was stolen. Quite the opposite.

But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work from The Nation and the left as a whole. If international election standards were applied to the 2016 primaries, eight states – Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee – would be investigated for suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri. The e bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are slightly different). Steve has called this “a stretch.” He and Josh seem to dismiss the assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as “conspiracy theory,” apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt. Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it’s now standard procedure to have the public numbers “adjusted” to fit official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. —–

Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told the Free Pressthat the computer configuration was set up to allow a “man in the middle attack” to alter Ohio’s votes.The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive swing states was by all accounts a “virtual statistical impossibility,” with the odds against that happening in the millions. But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen election is “conspiracy theory.” PLEASE!!! If someone – anyone! – can demonstrate EXACTLY how the electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.We hope in the meantime The Nation will add to Ari Berman’s fine reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth investigation into the “other shoe” of election theft – the flipping of the electronic vote count. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the “Diebold question” at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make voting secure.

Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004 that the 2008 election was being rigged. The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.  We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might have enhanced Obama’s scrutiny on the 2008 vote count. But it should be made clear that Obama’s victory could easily have been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10 million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with far less.

Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can’t be stolen? Do the Democrats need to win by 5%… 10%… to get an official victory? And what then happens to the down-ballot races? We prefer not to see those limits tested again.  And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012 Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio’s electronic machines. In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt Romney had lost Ohio. We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey’s 150+ previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable energy. Some publications that aren’t progressive understand the problem.

Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free Press reporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private, for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines. Over the years we’ve been repeatedly told that we should stop reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will be another massive vote count victory that will be “too big to steal.” Frankly, we don’t see that happening this year. And we find such talk deeply disturbing.

We have no doubt that innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years, along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control of our government. We’re also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie is likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona. And anyway … why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a problem unsolved?

This disease needs a definitive cure. We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in California.Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joining us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women’s health centers, the shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft(www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org). Bob’s Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org. Harvey’s Organic Spiral of US History is coming soon at www.solartopia.org.

 

 

 
41 Comments

Posted by on April 29, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,011 other followers