2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

28 Jun

Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

July 11,2011

In the 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Kloppenburg (Ind) apparently won by 200 votes. But two days later, 14,000 votes were “found” in Waukesha County. Prosser (Rep) was declared the unofficial winner by 7,000 votes. The subsequent recount was a travesty in which scores of slit ballot bags were photographed, as were poll tapes dated a week before the election. A stack of 50 consecutive Prosser ballots were found in Verona where Kloppenburg won 67% of the recorded vote; the probability is effectively absolute zero (0.33^50).

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that Kloppenburg won the election.
http://richardcharnin.com/2011WITrueVote.htm

Assuming a 50% turnout of both Obama and McCain voters, the recorded margin required that Kloppenburg must have won an implausibly low 81% of returning Obama voters while Prosser had 93% of returning McCain voters. If Kloppenburg had 88% of Obama voters and split 70,000 returning third-party and new voters with Prosser, then she won by 99,000 votes with a 53.3% vote share.

The sensitivity analysis tables for Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Waukesha display vote shares and margins for 25 turnout and vote share scenario combinations.

Kloppenburg won Milwaukee County by 29,700 recorded votes, 56.4-43.4% (Obama had 67.3%). In order to match the recorded vote, Prosser had to win 20% of Obama voters and 95% of McCain voters (assuming an equal 50% Obama/50% McCain voter turnout). Obama had a 36% margin compared to just 13% for Kloppenburg. Are we to believe that Prosser won 1 out of 5 returning Obama voters? If we assume that Kloppenburg had 90% of Obama voters, then she won by 61,000 votes with a 63% share. One must conclude that election fraud cut Kloppenburg’s margin in Milwaukee County by approximately 31,000 votes.

Prosser won Waukesha County by 59,500 recorded votes, 73.8-26.2% (Obama had 37.7%). In order to match the recorded vote, Prosser had to win 35% of Obama voters and 97% of McCain voters (assuming an equal 55% Obama/55% McCain voter turnout). Are we expected to believe that more than 1 in 3 Obama voters defected to Prosser? That is beyond implausible. On the other hand, if we assume that Kloppenburg won a very plausible 90% of Obama voters, then it appears that election fraud inflated Prosser’s Waukesha margin by around 23,000 votes.

The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes. Typically, the number of returning voters is a function of prior election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Annual Voter mortality is 1.25%, therefore approximately 3% of 2008 voters passed on prior to the election. New voters were assumed to be split equally between Kloppenburg and Prosser.

Given the 2010 recorded vote, we calculate new voters as follows:

Total Votes = returning 2008 voter turnout + New 2010 voters
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It’s ten years and counting since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

7 responses to “2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis”

1. July 4, 2011 at 7:03 pm

It would be nice if you had a twitter icon. Rather than having a website, I tweet. You’d get more coverage with a Twitter icon. Thanks, your doing a great job

John

2. July 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm

I hope you gave this information to Wisconsin Democrats, the ACLU, and campaign lawyers. If this could be exposed, with your help, and your information could be delivered to the public, even if the election could not be reversed, your work could help save our election integrity.

3. July 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm

While I’m generally persuaded by the logic of your analysis, I do have some questions. One: past supreme court elections have typically resulted in large margins for incumbents, whereas this race was a dead heat – the usual explanation (which seems correct to me) is voter disgust with Gov. Walker’s shenanigans and the perception (which also seems correct to me) that Prosser is Walker’s watercarrier. How does the TVM accommodate the typical incumbent-preference for what are normally low-publicity, off-election races such as supreme court?

Two: About the defector problem, I’m not sure that 1 of 10 Obama defectors is on the face of it outrageous: there does seem to have been, nationwide, a resurgence of right-wing ideas, accompanied by disappointment in Obama’s failure to move in a more liberal direction – which might lead to both Obama-voter dropoff and even defection. On the other hand – and, I’m guessing, largely counteracting that effect which may have been shown more clearly in the Nov. elections that brought Walker to office – again, the anti-Walker sentiment clearly motivated a lot of people…to vote for Kloppenburg, not Prosser. (I believe overall turnout for this justice election was higher than most previous justice elections, correct?) So on balance, yes: even if there were some defectors, they would seem to have been replaced by (a) fired-up anti-Walker voters and (b) former Republicans disgusted by Walker’s agenda (evidenced by his low approval numbers).

On balance, in other words, the official numbers still stink.

• July 6, 2011 at 1:05 am

Jeff, thanks for your thoughtful reply. The TVM does not explicitly factor in incumbent preference.. The sensitivity analysis provides a range of scenarios from which one can apply judgement to the effect of a given factor(s). The model cannot determine the unknowable True vote – but it does indicate implausible scenarios which can reasonably be rejected. The remaining scenarios provide an upper and lower bound on the True Vote.

Your second point about Obama defectors is well taken, But again, the model sensitivity analysis considers a range of voter turnout assumptions. As Obama percentage voter turnout increases, McCain’s share must decrease. The total number of returning voters must be no greater than the total number of votes cast in the SC election.

In any case, consider this scenario: a) equal turnout rate of Obama and McCain voters, b) 14% of Obama voters defect, c) 7% of McCain voters defect, d) an even 50/50 split of 72,000 returning third party and new voters… then Kloppenburg wins by 66,000 votes..

4. June 8, 2015 at 10:53 am

This is how they did it and it is how they have been doing it in the southern states… these voting machines have about as much government oversight as the illegal video gambling machines in the bars… I know, I was a technician and serviced them for a game operator.
Command Central and their vendors were behind it as this article suggested and complaint filed fell on deaf ears. Governor Jim Doyle knew the machines in the bars were illegal and were being used for gambling for profit without declaring income or paying taxes. He attempted to limit the expansion of gambling by getting those illegal machines out of the bars. But the tavern league and WAMO got together and joined forces and lobbied legislatures to change the law from a felony to a misdemeanor after machines were pulled the 3rd time by game operators in response to the last threat by Governor Doyle that has announced in the Wisconsin State Journal that if not out of the bars by a stated deadline, the police would pick up the machines as illegal contraband…

Law reduced fine to a \$500 dollar per incidence of proven complaint that gambling was being done with the use of these machines… Gambling continues with these machines just as before and nothing is done about it nor is the new law being unforced… They just look the other way and let it continue unabated.

Oh, and the argument they had for getting the law changed was that the machine itself did not meet the description of a gambling device. What a joke. they argued that the machine did not have a hopper and did not spit out coins or tokens for redemption… fact is they all had that optional feature that could easily be added. they all had in and out meters and a book keeping mode for vendors or game operators and their collectors to review with the bar owners at time of collections to divide up the profits from the machines. the machine kept track of every dollar that went into it and every dollar in winnings that were knocked off(cashed in) and how much was not being the profit made by the machine for the vendor to split with the bar owner…

At the time, the Indian casinos had machines that had hoppers that spit out real coins and or tokens for redemption… in the bars, initially they had a button called a knock off button usually on the back of the machine that the bar tender would push after noting the amount won by the customer then pay them…

But here is the funny thing that flies in the face of their lying and the conspiracy kept from the law and authorities… it is an agreement to deny gambling is taking place in the bars on these machines by the operators(vendors) and the bar owners and their hired help; and that is, that since they got the law changed as by their lying and argument as by the the machines not technically fitting the description of a gambling casino game machine, the casinos removed the hoppers and replaced them with a “print ticket” or cash out button and the paper trail redemption ticket would then be redeemed by the cashier for cash. Well guess what, that is what the vendors of the illegal machines in the bars have done… they replaced the secret knock off button that was on the back of the machine so that the bar tender would not have to witness a winning and moved the button to the front next to the play buttons and labeled it “print ticket” and installed printers that would print a redemption ticket for the amount won to be given to the bar tender to redeem with a cash payout.

Now, if you think that these bastards would not rig an election with the same kind of illegal machines called voting machines you are not only a stupid ignorant dumb ass but you live in denial of the real corruption and crime taking place that has brought an end to democracy wherein the vendors and operators of these voting machines are flipping a percentage of votes to match their pre-election poll statistics which they fraudulently state who they want to win and by what point margin then rig the machines to monitor and percentage actual votes cast and flip or steal that percentage from their opponent so as to maintain and deliver that point margin. Then, post election, brag about how accurate their poll statistics were… kind of like they claim before the election when they say, as Marquette did in their last poll a week before the re-election, in which they claimed Walker just jumped and took the lead over Mary Burke by 6 or 7 percentage points and then go on to say that that NON-POST Poll was conducted or taken within a small percentage of err (error)… then low and behold, post election it just happened to manifest itself with a little help from the machines or those editing data at the central tabulator with no way to prove election was stolen from the way the majority of voters had voted.

Until these machines are reined in on along with the crooks that control them we must educate all voters to reject these machines and insist on voting on paper ballets for a hand count as it was done in the past before the advent of the machine that can be programmed to screw you the voter and deliver traitors to positions of power they are not worthy or qualified to be in.
Meet Command Central
http://wcmcoop.com/2012/05/22/meet-command-central-the-people-in-charge-of-wisconsin-voting-machines/

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis