RSS

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Richard Charnin
July 23, 2016

In the 11 RED states:
– Clinton had an average 70.4% recorded share
– Independents comprised approximately 58.6% of voters
(based on 2016 Party-ID surveys)

Assume: Sanders won 55% of Independents

Then Clinton needed an IMPOSSIBLE 106% of Democrats to match the recorded vote.

RED states
………………Pct………Sanders….Clinton
IND…………58.6%……55.0%……45.0%
Dem ……….41.4%……-6.4%……106.4%
Recorded…100.0%……29.6%……70.4%

….2-party… Sanders
……IND…….Recorded Vote
Avg 58.6%… 29.6%

AL 57.6%… 19.8%
AR 57.5%… 31.0%
FL 59.3%… 34.1%
GA 55.7%… 28.3%
LA 73.4%… 24.6%
MS 55.5%… 16.6%
NC 58.0%… 42.8%
SC 55.2%… 26.1%
TN 58.5%… 32.9%
TX 58.8%… 33.7%
VA 55.0%… 35.4%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
July 22, 2016

This  analysis seeks to determine an approximate True Vote in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Clinton led the average of the adjusted exit polls (which were forced to match the recorded vote) by 56.4-43.6%.

But there has been a significant increase in Independents tn National Party-ID statistics since 2014. Using 2016 Party-ID as a proxy for voter turnout,Sanders led the average of the exit polls by 56.7-43.3%.

2014 National Party-ID:  Dem 40.5 – Rep 35.2 – Ind 24.2%
2-party mix: Dem 62.6 – Ind 37.4%

Note the 19% increase in Independents since 2014:
2016 National Party-ID: Dem 32 -Rep 25 -Ind 43%.
2-party mix:  Ind 57.3- Dem 42.7%.

The 2016  Party-ID  mix for each state is estimated by applying the equivalent proportional change from the 2014 National Party-ID to the 2016 National Party ID.

Let’s compare the the 2016 Party-ID effect on vote shares to the adjusted exit poll Party-ID weights  in three primaries: NY, MA, WI.  

Candidate vote shares are held constant. The only difference between the adjusted exit poll (which was forced to match the recorded vote) and the True Vote  is the Party-ID mix.

Sanders does significantly better when the 2016 Party-ID percentages are used.

View the exit polls here: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NY/Dem

View the spreadsheet calculations here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

NY Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 83% 62% 38%
Ind 14% 28% 72%
Vote  97% 55.4% 41.6%
2-party  100% 57.1% 42.9%

NY True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 53% 62% 38%
Ind 47% 28% 72%
2-party 46.0% 54.0%

MA Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 65% 60% 40%
Ind 33% 33% 66%
Vote   98% 49.9% 47.8%
2-party 100% 51.1% 48.9%

MA True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 30% 60% 40%
Ind 70% 33% 66%
2-party 41.2 58.8%

WI Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 71% 50% 50%
Ind 27% 28% 72%
Vote 43.1% 54.9%
2-party 43.9% 56.1%

WI True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 48% 50% 50%
Ind 52% 28% 72%
2-party 38.5% 61.5%

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 22, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Exit Poll Party-ID: Sanders vs. Clinton

Richard Charnin
July 17,  2016

Richard Charnin

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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

The model  calculates Sanders vs. Clinton True Vote vote shares based on the latest  Party-ID preference polls of Independent and Democratic voters.  Note that in just two years, Independents  have increased from 24.2% to  43% of the electorate.  They represent 57.3% of the 2-party preference mix. 

2014      2016    
Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+  Dem)  Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+ Dem)
40.5% 24.2% 37.4%  32% 43% 57.3%

Election fraud cost Sanders the primaries.  

Independents voted heavily for Sanders. The impossible/implausible Sanders and Clinton shares of Democrats that were required to match the recorded vote proves that the recorded vote was also impossible/implausible.

Given:
25 adjusted primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV) and
1- Independent and Democratic Party-ID mix
2- Recorded Primary vote shares
3- Sanders’ share of Independents (adjusted state primary exit poll)

Calculate:
Sanders’ share of Democrats required to match the primary recorded vote

Results:
The required share is impossible (-16% < 1%) in 7 primares:
AL CT SC MS AR FL IA

The required share is implausible (2 < 18%) in 11 primaries:
 TN GA TX NV VA NY MA NC MD OH PA

The required share is plausible (> 25%) in 9 primaries:
IN NH MI IL WV MO OK WI  VT

Example: In Massachusetts, Sanders had 66.7% of Independents. He had to have an implausibly low 9.1% of Democrats to match his 49.3% share. If he had 25%, he would have won the primary with 54%.


MA……… Pct Sanders Clinton
IND……. 69.8% 66.7% 33.3%
Dem……. 30.2%  9.1% 90.9%
Total….. 100%  49.3% 50.7%
Recorded…….. 49.3% 50.7%

———————————————–

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

CA Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sensitivity Analysis I and II
1-Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
2-Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 56-44%

Sensitivity Analysis I
1-Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Independents range from 45-65% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.

Sensitivity Analysis II
1-Sanders has 35-55% of Democrats.
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Party-ID: Independents 55%; Democrats 45% (held constant).
Result: Sanders wins 22 of 25 Scenarios..

Sensitivity I          
Sanders% DEM  45%   IND    
  45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Sanders% IND   Sanders Vote share
75% 59% 60% 62% 63% 65%
70% 56% 58% 59% 60% 61%
65% 54% 55% 56% 57% 58%
60% 52% 53% 53% 54% 55%
55% 50% 50% 51% 51% 52%
Sensitivity II          
Independents 55%   Sanders% IND    
  55% 60% 65% 70% 75%
Sanders% DEM   Sanders Vote share
55% 55% 58% 61% 63% 66%
50% 53% 56% 58% 61% 64%
45% 51% 53% 56% 59% 62%
40% 48% 51% 54% 57% 59%
35% 46% 49% 52% 54% 57%

View the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 

 

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on July 17, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Confirmation: Bernie won California by at least 100,000 votes

Richard Charnin
July 10, 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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%

According to Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/still-sanders-activists-cling-to-hope-of-flipping-california/  

“They said, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won by 400,000 votes,” Palast said of the media. “Now, I want you to say this number with me: 1,959,900. That’s the number of ballots that were not yet counted. How do you say an election’s over when there are 2 million ballots left to count?”

According to Palast, those ballots had the potential to flip the election. Based on a call to the secretary of state’s office, he estimated that all of the outstanding ballots were from “no party preference” voters; based on a pre-primary poll, he estimated a 40 percentage point margin for Sanders among those ballots.

“Bernie Sanders got at least 1.25 million votes from that pile,” Palast said. “The good news is that Bernie won California. … If you count every ballot, Sanders would win by 100,000.”

J.T. Waldron  writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564

As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.

Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.

In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift:

On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.

By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers.

California primary early vote by mail exit poll

Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis 

When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties,  they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that  the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small  (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Simple California Vote share Model

Assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis- What if Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Covert Shredding of Provisional Ballots

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

The truck bearing the slogan: Because the Outcome has to be Certain!!!

White-out Erasing of Sanders Ballots

 Election monitors in San Diego   have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials. They  were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official to keep her voice down. The election monitor questions what the officials seen through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview, Charlie Loomis, the IT manager,  confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this; the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how these  provisional ballots must be processed.  Loomis said he has “nothing to do with” those rules. He did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

Date Range Votes HRC Sanders HRC Sanders
Elec Day June 7 early 1,520,626 951,304 557,005 62.56% 36.63%
June 7 late 1,949,824 977,447 945,080 50.73% 48.47%
Elec Day Total 3,470,450 1,928,750 1,502,085 55.58% 43.28%
June 8-23 Vote by Mail 1,313,293 645,090 652,707 49.12% 49.70%
June 7-23 Total 4,783,743 2,573,840 2,154,792 53.80% 45.04%
June 9-23 Provisionl 301,824 120,247 179,163 39.84% 59.36%
Est Provis. 100,000 33,280 66,000 33.28% 66.00%
NPP 995,000 288,550 706,450 29.00% 71.00%
Total 1,396,824 442,077 951,613 31.65% 68.13%
Total 6,180,567 3,015,917 3,106,404 48.80% 50.26%
        90,488   1.46%
Update            
Brakey  Estimated 6,180,567
6/7 EDay Counted 3,470,450
Unctd 2,710,117
7/7 Unctd Counted 2,353,152
Remaining Unctd 356,965
Missing 686,210
7/7 Unctd+ missing 1,043,175
75% Sanders 782,381 Uncounted + missing
25% Clinton 260,794 Uncounted + missing
Sanders gain 521,588
Clinton margin 426,665 on June 7
Sanders margin 94,922 on July 7
Greg Palast Sanders margin 100,000

 

 
13 Comments

Posted by on July 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

California Primary: Bernie leads in Vote Counts since Election Day

California Primary: County Votes 

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%.
Since Election Day, Bernie leads by 52.66 – 47.34%.  

Bernie’s vote share has increased over his Election Day share in every county.

In Humboldt County, the only county with Open Source Vote counting software, Bernie has a 71% two-party share, his highest in the 58 CA counties. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/humboldt/

Period………….. Votes………………Sanders……….Clinton
Elec Day (6/7)… 3,442,623………1,502,043………1,940,580
…………………………………………..43.63%…………56.37%
Current (7/6)…..5,097,033………2,373,218………2,723,815
…………………………………………..46.56%………… 53.44%
6/8 to 7/6……….1,654,410………..871,175…………783,235
…………………………………………..52.66%…………47.34%

Election Day and Post-election Democratic primary votes and shares :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  of California counties, sorted from smallest to largest, confirms the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share. One would intuitively expect that  the more progressive candidate (Sanders) would slightly gain cumulative vote share in the largest (typically liberal) urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in smaller, (typically conservative) counties, is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping in larger counties.

J.T. Waldron in electionnightmares.com:  After painstaking construction of spreadsheet data comparing batches of California 2016 Primary Election ballots counted from election day until now, elections expert John Brakey has found a pattern that is consistent with a technique that is aptly named the “strip, stack and hack” approach to election fraud.

Brakey believes California election officials, in conjunction with their vendors, managed to “strip” the vote by rendering people ineligible to use a regular ballot prior to the election, “stack” likely Clinton voters to be counted first on election day and “hack” the batch of votes to be counted later without an audit.

After more than 700,000 California voters were stripped from being counted in a timely manner when forced to vote on a provisional ballot, vote-by-mail ballots from likely Clinton voters were stacked into the piles to be counted first. This enabled the establishment to report a huge 26% election night lead by Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, which would quietly be reduced to a still shrinking single digit lead as remaining ballots continue to be counted.

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

In addition, http://embols.com/2016/07/06/ballots-with-sanders-votes-covered-with-white-out-filmed-by-election-monitors-in-san-diego/ “Citizen election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with, with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. 

The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials, which are ballots which were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official who identifies herself as “Karen Mayer,” to keep her voice down, as she questions what officials through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview of another official, “Charlie Loomis,” the IT manager, the manager confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this, as the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how the ballots, which are provisional ballots, must be processed. Mr. Loomis say he has “nothing to do with” those rules. Mr. Loomis did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View a running  total  of the number and percent of newly added voters (does not include 0.8% other Democratic candidates).

Sanders 2-party Vote Share
* recent update

Sanders Election Day Current Difference
CALIFORNIA 43.63% 46.56% 2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA* 40.2% 43.0% 2.8%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT* 68.7% 71.0% 2.3%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA * 60.2% 61.4% 1.2%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER* 42.5% 45.3% 2.8%
PLUMAS 55.0% 54.9% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE * 39.4% 43.3% 3.9%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BERNARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO * 44.5% 48.1% 3.6%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA* 49.4% 52.8% 3.4%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ * 55.6% 59.3% 3.7%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER * 44.4% 46.3% 1.8%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE * 40.7% 44.6% 3.9%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

 

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 6, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Bernie Landslide in CA Humboldt Cty (Open Source system)

A Bernie Landslide in CA Humboldt County (Open Source Voting Tabulation System)

Richard Charnin
July 2, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In California there is just ONE county which uses an Open Source System to count votes. Could that be why Bernie had 71% of the 2-party vote in Humboldt County? It was his highest vote share in ALL 58 counties!  The system is a deterrent to fraud.

View the  58 California counties: Election Day and post-Election Day votes.

The Humboldt Open Source (TEVS) tabulation system was pioneered in 2006 by Mitch Trachtenberg, a computer programmer, together with Carolyn Crnich, registrar of Humboldt County and Kevin Collins, election integrity activist. The election showed significant problems in the Diebold system they were using in counting votes.

As result of these problems, Diebold abruptly severed its business relationship with Humboldt. Carolyn then switched to another voting company, Hart InterCivic, but kept the TEVS system functioning.

TEVS is the ONLY OPEN SOURCE, TRANSPARENT SYSTEM FOR COUNTING VOTES IN THE UNITED STATES  It is being used as a recounting system to double-check  the vote-counting of the Hart InterCivic system which  has been performing well, unlike the Diebold system which was used previously.

At the time she introduced TEVS, Carolyn purchased  a high speed scanner that could operate independently of any voting machine to  tabulate the votes using TEVS.

Confirmation of Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 2, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

Richard Charnin

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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done writing these kinds of posts. 

Nate is apparently oblivious of the overwhelming evidence that the Democratic primary was stolen. It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate but then move to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote.

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud.  It is 2016 and common knowledge that Bush stole both elections which were proven mathematically. The exit polls were right in 2000 and 2004; the vote counts were corrupted. Nate cannot escape these facts on the 2015 Democratic primaries

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share
1)  in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  
2) by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

I could stop right here. But  let’s proceed.

Nate’s points are in italic.

  • I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

  • All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.
  • In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.
  • The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  
  • In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.
  • The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).

According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

  • Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll. Differential nonresponse, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004:
Reluctant Bush Responder ; Evaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from?  From the experts cited below – surely not from the controlled MSM.  Are the experts in the links below conspiracy theorists? Nate’s basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are even greater than in ordinary polls. But his claim that non-response, cluster effects, absentee voters are not included is false;  they are all factors used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?.

  • Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have determined they can be viewed as indicators of fraud?  He is  implying that these experts are delusional or incompetent in believing that exit poll discrepancies exceeding the margin of error raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Exit pollsters ask this simple question of males and females: WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR? The exit poll discrepancy of the unadjusted Gender vote share indicates the probability of fraud- WHETHER OR NOT THE EXIT POLL WAS DESIGNED TO UNCOVER FRAUD. BY FORCING THE UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, THE POLLSTERS SEEK TO HIDE THE FRAUD, NOT EXPOSE IT.

  • Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

  • There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,562 other followers