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.

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.

About these ads

6 responses to “2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court True Vote Analysis

  1. John Joerg

    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


  2. d.john

    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. Jeff Norman

    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.

    • richardcharnin

      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..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 796 other followers

%d bloggers like this: