Monthly Archives: April 2012

9/19/ 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model: Obama 320 EV; 100% Win Probability

9/19/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 320 EV; 100% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Sept.19, 2012

The analysis assumes the election is held on the latest poll date:
2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model

UPDATE: FINAL 11/5 FORECAST. Go here for the latest version.

Forecast Summary
Obama has jumped out to a commanding 49-44% lead in the battleground state polls. He has 320 expected electoral votes based on his state win probabilities. The 500 trial Monte Carlo simulation indicates that if the election were held today, he would have a 100% win probability (he won all 500 election simulation trials). But it’s still too early to project him a winner.

The 7% of voters who are still undecided hold the key to the election. The model currently assumes an equal split of the undecided vote. I suspect they are mostly Democrats disillusioned with Obama but scared by Romney and Ryan. If the undecided voters break for Obama, he will be in a commanding position to win re-election. But look for an October surprise.

Obama needs at least a 55% True Vote to overcome the Fraud factor. He has held a steady 4% lead in the state polls since April. The polls are anticipating the inevitable 5% reduction in Obama’s True Vote. Immediately after the Democratic Convention, Obama moved into a 5% lead in the Gallup (RV) and Rasmussen (LV) national tracking polls, but the polls are tied once again.

The forecast model is a combination of a) a pre-election Monte Carlo Simulation Model, which is based on the latest state polls, and b) the True Vote Model, based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding estimated vote shares. The model will be updated periodically for the latest state and national polls.

The source of the polling data is the Real Clear Politics (RCP) website. The simulation uses the latest state polls. Recorded 2008 vote shares are used for states which have not yet been polled.

Model.......... Obama Romney
True Vote...... 55.25% 44.75%
Expected EV.... 379.64 158.36
Snapshot EV.... 380 158
EV Win Prob.... 99.97% 0.03%

State Polls
Average........ 49.3% 44.4%
Projection..... 52.5% 47.5%
Pop. Win Prob.. 94.8% 5.2%
Expected EV.... 320.2 217.8
Snapshot EV.... 322 216

National Polls
Average....... 48.20% 45.30%
Projection.... 51.45% 48.55%
Pop. Win Prob.. 92.2% 7.8%
Gallup......... 47.0% 46.0%
Rasmussen...... 46.0% 47.0%

Projection..... 52.5% 47.5%
Mean EV........ 320.4 217.6
Max EV......... 351 187
Min EV......... 278 260
EV Win Prob.... 100.0% 0.0%

The 2008 True Vote Model (TVM) determined that Obama won in a landslide by 58-40.3%. Based on the historical red-shift, he needs at least a 55% True Vote share to overcome the systemic 5% fraud factor. The TVM was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: Obama had an identical 58-40.5% margin (76,000 respondents). He won unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by an even bigger 61-37% margin.

The National Exit Poll displayed on mainstream media websites (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc.) indicate that Obama had 52.9%. As usual, the unadjusted state and national exit polls were forced to match the recorded share.

The True Vote Model

In projecting the national vote, the required input to the TVM are returning 2008 voter turnout rates in 2012 and estimated 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate turnout . A 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. There are two options for estimating returning voters. The default option assumes that 2008 voters return in proportion to the unadjusted 2008 exit poll aggregate (Obama won by 58-40.5%). In this scenario, Obama wins by 55-45% with 380 EV and has a 100% EV win probability.

It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The 1988-2008 True Vote Model utilizes estimates of previous election returning and new voters and and adjusted state and national exit poll vote shares.

Sensitivity analysis

The TVM displays the effects of effects of incremental changes in turnout rates and shares of returning voters. Three tables are generated consisting of nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) the Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. The output tables display resulting vote shares, vote margins and popular vote win probabilities.

Monte Carlo Simulation: 500 election trials
There are two options for the simulation model. Both should be used and the results compared. The default option uses the TVM projected state vote shares. The second option uses projections based on the latest pre-election state polls.

The projected vote share is the sum of the poll share and the undecided voter allocation (UVA). The model uses state vote share projections as input to the Normal Distribution function to determine the state win probability.

The simulation consists of 500 election trials. The electoral vote win probability is the number of winning election trials divided by 500.

In each election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated for each state and compared to Obama’s state win probability. If RND is greater than the win probability, the Republican wins the state. If RND is less than the win probability, Obama wins the state. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 electoral votes. The process is repeated in 500 election trials.

2008 State Exit Poll and recorded vote data is displayed in the ‘2008‘ worksheet. The latest state polls are listed in the ‘Polls” worksheet which will be used for trend analysis. The data is displayed graphically in the ‘PollChart’ worksheet. A histogram of the Monte Carlo Simulation (500 trials) is displayed in the ‘ObamaEVChart’ worksheet.

Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.

1. The snapshot EV is a simple summation of the state electoral votes. It could be misleading since there may be several very close elections which go one way.
2. The Theoretical EV is the product sum of the state electoral votes and win probabilities. A simulation or meta-analysis is not required to calculate the expected EV.
3. The Mean EV is the average electoral vote in the 500 simulated elections.

The Mean EV will be close to the Theoretical EV, illustrating the Law of Large Numbers. The snapshot EV will likely differ slightly from the Theoretical EV, depending on the number of state election projections that fall within the margin of error.

Obama’s electoral vote win probability is the percentage of 500 simulated election trials that he won.

The national popular vote win probability is calculated using the normal distribution using the national aggregate of the the projected vote shares. The national aggregate margin of error is 1-2% lower than the average MoE of the individual states. That is, if you believe the Law of Large Numbers and convergence to the mean.

The Fraud Factor

Election fraud reduced the 1988-2008 Democratic presidential unadjusted exit poll margin from 52-42% to 48-46% recorded. View the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

The combination of True Vote Model and state poll-based Monte Carlo Simulation enables the analyst to determine if the electoral and popular vote share estimates are plausible. The aggregate state poll shares can be compared to the default TVM.

The TVM can be forced to match the aggregate poll projection by…
– Adjusting the vote shares by entering an incremental adjustment in the designated input cell. A red flag would be raised if the match required that Obama capture 85% of returning Obama voters while Romney gets 95% of returning McCain voters (a 10% net defection).

– Adjusting 2008 voter turnout in 2012 in order to force a match to the aggregate projected poll shares. For example, if McCain voter turnout is required to be 10-15% higher than Obama’s, that would also raise a red flag.

– Setting the returning voter option to assume the 2008 recorded vote. This is an implicit assumption that the 2008 recorded vote was the True Vote. Of course, the 2008 election was highly fraudulent, but this is what the election forecasters effectively do: they ignore the fraud factor. The resulting model vote shares would then closely match the LV polls and would suggest that Romney has a good chance of winning a rigged election.

In any case, check the simulated, theoretical and snapshot electoral vote projections and the corresponding win probabilities.

Election Model Projections: 2004-2010

In 2004, I created the Election Model , and posted weekly forecasts using the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final Nov.1 forecast had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote. The forecast closely matched the unadjusted exit polls.

In 2006, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats won the House by a 52-46% vote share. My 120 Generic Poll Forecasting Regression Model indicated that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% recorded share. He won by 9.5 million votes. But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied. The post-election True Vote Model determined that Obama won by 23 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share matched the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

The exit pollsters have never explained the massive 11% state exit poll margin discrepancy, much less the impossible National Exit Poll 17% discrepancy. If they do, they will surely claim that the discrepancies were due to flawed polling samples. Nor can they explain the rationale of using impossible returning voter weight adjustments to force the exit polls to match the recorded votes in the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Pre-election RV and LV Polls

Virtually all early pre-election polls are of Registered Voters (RV). An exception is the Rasmussen poll. It uses the Likely Voter (LV) subset of the full RV sample. Rasmussen is an admitted GOP pollster.

One month prior to the election, the pollsters replace the full RV sample polls with LV subsamples. The RV polls are transformed to LVs to promote an artificial “horse race” – and the poll shares invariably tighten. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) effectively understates the turnout of millions of new Democratic voters – and therefore increases the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in RV polls than in the LVs.

Media pundits and pollsters are paid to project the recorded vote – not the True Vote. And they are usually right. The closer they are, the better they look. They expect there will be fraud, so they prepare the public for it by switching to LV polls which are usually excellent predictors of the recorded vote. But they never mention the fraud factor which gets them there.

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls – after undecided voters are allocated. They have also been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The loop is closed when implausible/impossible exit polls are forced to match bogus recorded votes that were predicted by biased LV pre-election polls.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV


Posted by on April 26, 2012 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models


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

Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy

Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy

Richard Charnin
April 5, 2012

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

The pattern should be clear by now. The exit pollsters working for the mainstream media adjust actual exit poll data to match official recorded votes. It happens in every election. And it will again in 2012. It’s like fixing the intelligence to match the policy in Iraq.

The exit pollsters admit that they force the match. This is from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) in Explaining Exit Polls: “It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did”.

But very few are aware of the perennial scam. The media won’t tell you. They would only be indicting themselves. The only way to know is to do the research, collect the data, build the models and crunch the numbers. And then post the analysis on the Net, hoping that at least one well-known personality will read it. And then shake things up by discussing Election Fraud the next time they are interviewed in the mainstream media.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

Let’s start with the 2000 election which the Supreme Court handed to Bush. Gore won the national recorded vote by 540,000 (48.4-47.9%). Most people are aware of that. But how many know that he won the unadjusted state exit polls (56,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.5%? That’s a 7 million vote margin. He won the unadjusted 2000 National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents) by 48.5-46.3%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the state exit polls.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). The National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) was adjusted to match the recorded vote. But how many realize that Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (the same 13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%? That’s a 6 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%.

The Evaluation of Edison-Mitofsky Election System 2004 report was released in Jan. 2005. It was written in response to a number of independent online researchers whose analysis of preliminary state exit polls (as well as anecdotal data) strongly suggested that the election was likely stolen. Media pundits claimed the Report proved Bush won the election fairly – but they ignored the factual data provided in the report. Rather, they parroted the exit pollster’s hypothesis (later dubbed the “reluctant Bush responder”) that the massive 6.5% exit poll discrepancy was due to the differential response rate of voters who were polled: they claimed that 56 Democrats responded for every 50 Republicans. The exit pollsters admitted it was just a theory; they had no evidence for it. In fact, the precinct data showed just the opposite: response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

But now we have the proof: 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Kerry’s 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share appears to be understating his True Vote since it implies that Bush won in 2000 by 48.4-47.0% – but the exit polls show that Gore led by 50.8-44.5%. How could that be? Surely, disgruntled Gore voters were more likely to return in 2004 than Bush voters. Bush had a 48% approval rating.

Click this to view the overwhelming evidence confirming a Kerry landslide.

Assuming the 2000 unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct and voters returned proportionately in 2004, then Kerry had at least 53.6% and won by more than 10 million votes, matching the True Vote Model (TVM). Why the 2% TVM deviation from the exit polls? Could it be that exit poll precincts were at least partially weighted to the 2000 recorded vote? In other words, was the sample biased in favor of Bush?

Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

So how did Kerry lose?

How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

An even greater miracle occurred in 1992 for Poppy Bush. In that election, 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out. But even that was not enough to steal it from Clinton.

Let’s move on to 2008. Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6% (9.5 million votes). Of course, that is also what the adjusted National Exit Poll indicates. But it’s not how the exit poll respondents said they voted.

According to the unadjusted NEP (17,836 respondents), Obama won by 61.0-37.2%. He had 58% in unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate (83,000 respondents). It was a 22 million vote landslide. In order to believe the recorded vote, you must believe that the state and national exit polls (and the True Vote Model) were off by 5 to 8 times the margin of error.

Why the massive discrepancies from the recorded vote shares? Once again, the exit pollsters had to force the unadjusted exit polls (state and national) to match the recorded vote. They had to have 60 million returning Bush and 48 million returning Kerry voters. Just like the 2004 Final NEP, it was not just implausible and counter-intuitive, it was mathematically impossible. The pollsters needed a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters in 2008. But Bush won the (bogus) recorded vote by just 3 million – and Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls, of which 226 red-shifted from the poll to the vote for the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. If the elections were fair, approximately 137 would shift to the Democrat and 137 to the Republican. The probability that 226 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = 3.7E-31 (zero)

The margin of error was exceeded in 126 exit polls (15 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is:
P = 8E-75 (zero)

The margin of error was exceeded in 123 of the 274 exit polls in favor of GOP and just 3 for the Democrat. The probability P is:
P= 5E-106 (zero)

The following table summarizes a) the number of state elections which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote, b) the number of states (n) in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican, c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the deviation between the exit poll and recorded vote.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 20.. 11… 3.5E-20….. 50.3 45.7 4.6
1992 44.. 26… 2.4E-25….. 47.6 43.0 4.6
1996 43.. 16… 4.9E-13….. 52.6 49.3 3.3
2000 34.. 12… 8.7E-09….. 50.8 48.4 2.4
2004 40.. 22… 3.5E-20….. 51.1 48.3 2.8
2008 45.. 36… 2.4E-37….. 58.0 52.9 5.1

Total 226. 123…. 5E-106… 51.88 48.06 3.82

Simulation forecast trends are displayed in the following graphs:

State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV

1 Comment

Posted by on April 5, 2012 in 2004 Election, Election Myths, Media

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,598 other followers