Monthly Archives: August 2012

The Election Fraud Quiz

The Election Fraud Quiz

Richard Charnin
August 21, 2012
Updated: June 21, 2013

After completing the quiz link to the Election Fraud Quiz Spreadsheet . Click the ‘Answers’ tab. Enter the number of questions you answered correctly on the ‘Scores’ sheet. Only you know your test score. Do not enter name, code or initials, just the number of correct answers.

View the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll reference

Election Fraud: An Introduction Exit Poll Probability Analysis
1) Approximately how many ballots were uncounted in the 1988-2008 presidential elections?
a) 10 million, b) 30 million, c) 40 million

2) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the margin of error was exceeded in 126 of 274 state exit polls. Of the 126, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. What is the probability that 123 of 274 exit polls would exceed the margin of error and shift to the Republican in the vote?
a) 1/million, b) 1/trillion, c) (1/trillion)^8

3) The 2004 National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) was adjusted to match the recorded vote won by Bush, 50.7-48.3%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates the actual survey response showed that Kerry won by
a) 50-49%, b) 51.1-47.6%, c) 51.7-47.0%

4) In 2000, Bush had 50.5 million votes. The final adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicates that 52.6 million (43%) of the 122.3 million who voted were returning Bush 2000 voters. This is
a) plausible, b) implausible, c) impossible

5) In 2000, Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000. According to the Census, approximately 6 million votes were uncounted. If all votes cast were counted, a reasonable estimate of Gore’s True Vote margin is
a) 1 million, b) 2 million, c) 4 million

6) In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 48.9-41.8 million. How many Bush 1988 voters did the 1992 National Exit Poll indicate returned to vote in 1992?
a) 47 million, b) 45 million, c) 55 million

7) In 2004, Bush won Florida by 52.1-47.1%. Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents; 2.4% margin of error) by 50.8-48.0%. The probability of the 7.8% discrepancy is approximately
a) 1 in 500, b) 1 in 1500, c) 1 in 3000

8) In 2000, Al Gore won the recorded popular vote over Bush (51.0-50.5 million). Approximately 2.5 million Bush voters died prior to 2004. Therefore 48 million Bush voters were alive, of whom 47 million voted. The 2004 National Exit Poll indicates that 52.6 million (43% of the 122.3 million electorate) were returning Bush voters. How many Bush phantom voters were required to match the recorded vote?
a) 2 million, b) 4.6 million, c) 5.6 million

9) In 2008 there were 131.4 million recorded votes. The National Exit Poll indicates that 60.3 million (46%) were returning Bush and 48.6 million (37%) Kerry voters. Bush had 62.0 million recorded votes in 2004. The 11.7 million difference between returning Bush and Kerry voters is
a) plausible, b) implausible, c) impossible

10) In 2008, Obama had 52% (63 of 121 million) of votes recorded on Election Day. What was his share of the 10 million votes recorded after Election Day?
a) 52%, b) 54%, c) 59%

11) According to the 2004 Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), 86 of 88 touch screens switched votes from Kerry to Bush. What are the odds of this occurrence (assume a random sample of independent, unbiased machines)?
a) 1 in 3 million b) 1 in 123 million, c) 1 in 79 billion trillion

12) In the 2006 midterms, the Generic 120-poll trend projected a 56.4% Democratic share. The National Exit Poll was adjusted to match the 52% recorded share. What was the unadjusted Exit Poll share?
a) 52.3%, b) 54.1%, c) 56.4%

13) The 2000 Census indicates 110.8 million votes were cast; the 2004 Census indicates 125.7 million. Given a) the 1.25% annual voter mortality rate, b) estimated 98% turnout of living 2000 voters in 2004, and c) unadjusted National Exit Poll vote shares, what was the True Vote (in millions)?
a) Kerry by 67-57, b) Kerry by 63-61, c) Bush by 63-61

14) In the 1988-2008 presidential state elections, the Democrats won the average recorded vote by 48-46%. They won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 49-45%, b) 52-41%, c) 50-44%

15) The majority of late undecided voters almost always break for the challenger. On Election Day 2004, Bush had a 48% approval rating. Final 2004 pre-election polls indicated a 47% tie with 5% undecided. Since Kerry was the challenger, what was the most likely projection?
a) Kerry by 52-47%, b) Kerry by 51-48%, c) too close to call

16) In order to match the 2004 recorded vote, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated approximately 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive. This indicates that
a) something is wrong with the poll
b) something is wrong with the vote
c) something is wrong with the poll and vote
d) no conclusion can be drawn

17) Kerry had 54.1% in the Ohio unadjusted exit poll (2.8% margin of error). The probability that he had at least 51.3% is a) 90%, b) 95%, c) 97.5%

18) In 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008, 226 red-shifted to the GOP. Assuming all elections were fair, how many would normally be expected to red-shift?
a) 180, b) 137, c) 145

19) Given the 95% confidence level, how many of the 274 state exit polls would normally be expected to exceed the margin of error?
a) 14, b) 34, c) 44

20) In order to calculate the True Vote, the analyst needs to estimate
a) number of votes cast in the prior and current election
b) turnout rates of prior election living voters
c) each candidate’s shares of new and returning voters
d) all of the above

21) In 2012, Obama had 50.3% of 117.4 million votes recorded on Election Day. There were 11.7 million late votes. What was Obama’s late vote share?
a) 52%, b) 55%, c) 58%

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

This is a summary of 2004-2012 pre-election projections and corresponding recorded votes, exit polls and True Vote Models.

2004 Election Model
Kerry Projected 51.8% (2-party), 337 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.1-47.6%, 337 EV
National Exit Poll: 51.7-47.0%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 48.3-50.7%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV

2004 Election Model 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

2006 Midterms
Democratic Generic 120-Poll Trend Model: 56.4-41.6%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.4-41.6%
Wikipedia recorded vote: 57.7-41.8%
Adjusted Final National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.2-45.9%

2008 Election Model
Obama Projected: 53.1-44.9%, 365.3 expected EV; 365.8 EV (simulation mean)
State exit poll aggregate: 58.1-40.3%, 420 EV
National Exit Poll: 61.0-37.5%
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote): 52.9-45.6%, 365 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV

2008 Election Model Graphs
Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram

2010 Midterms Overview
True Vote Model Analysis

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

2012 Model Overview
Electoral Vote Trend
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Frequency Distribution

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 22, 2012 in Uncategorized


Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference

Perspectives on a New Exit Poll Reference

Richard Charnin

Oct. 30, 2012
Updated: Aug.22, 2013

My comments in bold follow selected paragraphs from Chapter 1 of a new text Exit Polls:Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010 by Samuel J. Best, University of Connecticut and Brian S. Krueger, University of Rhode Island.

“Despite the unique insights that exit polls can provide about the composition and preferences of voters, they are seldom used after the days immediately following an election. Once media organizations have tapped the exit polls for explanations of electoral outcomes, they often disappear from the public eye. Some scholars may use them over the next year or two to explore the voting behavior of certain subgroups, such as Hispanics, women, or young people, but for the most part they recede into memory, rarely used beyond the next national election.”

“Unfortunately, few efforts are made to consider the behavior of voters over time. Historical context typically centers on comparing an election to its most recent predecessor, such as contrasting the 2008 presidential election with the 2004 contest. Rarely are exit poll responses tracked and analyzed over time, leaving many important questions understudied. For example, how have various subgroups in the electorate evolved over time? Have their relative sizes in the active electorate increased or decreased? Have their voting patterns grown increasingly partisan or independent? Which subgroups in the electorate behave similarly through the years?”

I wrote Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll in 2010. My new book Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts was published in 2012.

The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database is based on the Roper (University of Connecticut) election data archive.

Of the 274 state exit polls, 232 red-shifted to the Republican. A total of 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 would be expected at the 95% confidence level). Of the 135 polls, an astounding 131 red-shifted to the Republican, proving systemic election fraud beyond any doubt, The probability is ZERO (E-116).

“In the weeks and months that follow, exit polls are used time and again to give meaning to the election results. Newly elected officials rely on them to substantiate policy mandates they claim to have received from voters. Partisan pundits scrutinize them for successful and failed campaign strategies. Even political strategists use them to pinpoint key groups and issues that need to be won over to succeed in future elections.”

But what if the final, adjusted exit polls can be shown to be mathematically impossible? In the 1988, 1992, 2004, 2008 elections, the National Exit Poll had to be adjusted to match the recorded vote. This is standard operating procedure – and very few know of it. But in order to conform to the recorded vote in these four elections, there had to be millions more returning Bush voters than were still living. Obviously, an impossibility.Therefore, since the national exit polls were adjusted using impossible numbers, this is absolute proof that the recorded vote must also be impossible. Let’s look at the 2004 numbers.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million (43% of 122 million recorded votes) returning Bush 2000 voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Applying an estimated 5% voter mortality rate, 48 million Bush 2000 voters were living in 2004. Therefore, Bush needed a 110% turnout (52.6/48) turnout of his living 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote, clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility. Assuming 98% turnout, there were only 47 million returning Bush voters. So where did the 5.6 million phantom voters come from?

In fact, Kerry won the unadjusted state and national exit polls. He won the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate of 76,000 respondents by 50.97-47.71%.
13660.. Kerry Bush...Other
Sample 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%

(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 23.1 18.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48.2 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49.7 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4.7 3.70% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46%
Votes 125.7 100% 65.07 58.83 1.84

TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 22.4 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52.1 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47.4 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3.9 3.10% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125.7 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36%
Votes 125.7 100% 67.36 56.67 1.71

ADJUSTED NATIONAL EXIT POLL (final adjusted vote shares)
(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout

DNV. 20.8 17.0% 54% 44% 2% - -
Gore 45.2 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48.4 93%
Bush 52.6 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47.9 110% impossible 2000 voters

Other 3.7 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3.8 97%
Share 122.3 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%
Votes 122.3 100% 59.03 62.04 1.22

“Unfortunately, these same exit poll results are not easily accessible to members of the public interested in dissecting them. After appearing in the next day’s newspapers or on a politically oriented website, they disappear quickly from sight as the election fades in prominence. Eventually, the exit polls are archived at universities where only subscribers are capable of retrieving the data. But nowhere is a complete set of biennial exit poll results available in an easy-to-use format for curious parties.”

I created the 1988-2008 state and national presidential exit polls spreadsheet database as an analytical resource using Roper as the data source. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded votes

“Second, and far more troublesome for the reputation of the exit polls, the preliminary exit poll results showed a partisan skew. They overstated Bill Clinton’s share of the vote by 2.5 points in the 1992 presidential race and understated George H. W. Bush’s share by 2.5 points, giving the impression that Clinton won by a far greater margin than the officially tabulated votes indicated.”

“The raw exit poll data had never been deemed “accurate” in the past prior to being weighted to the actual results, but with the release of early results, observable, but correctable, sampling errors gave the impression that the numbers were off.”

One very plausible reason that they were “off” were the 10 million net uncounted votes, the majority from minority precincts that are 90%+ Democratic. The voters were polled, but their votes were not counted. Clinton may have lost millions of other votes due to switched and stuffed ballots. In order to match the 1992 recorded vote, the Final National Exit Poll required that 119% of living Bush 1988 voters turned out in 1992.

“VRS claimed the Democratic overstatement in the raw exit poll data was due to partisan differences in the willingness of voters to complete the exit poll, not to a poor selection of precincts or differential response rates by age, race, or gender. Republicans simply refused to participate at the same rates as Democrats, resulting in there being fewer Republicans in the raw exit poll results than there should have been. Mitofsky speculated that the disparity was due to different intensities of support for the candidates—Democratic voters were just more excited about voting for Clinton than Republican voters were about voting for Bush and, as a result, were more motivated to communicate this message by filling out the exit poll questionnaire; others thought it was due to Republicans in general having less confidence in the mass media.”

Mitofsky may have “speculated” but there is no evidence that Democrats were more responsive to the exit pollsters. In fact, since 2000 response rates in GOP strongholds were higher than comparable Democratic rates. GOP exit poll and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. The average Democratic correlation was -0.26. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased. In 2004, exit poll precinct data showed that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts.

“Despite the source of the partisan bias in the raw results, the exit polls were able to characterize accurately the voting patterns of demographic subgroups and partisan constituencies once they were weighted to match the official returns. The problem was that the data could not be corrected until the official results began coming in. As a result, the exit polls were susceptible to inaccurate vote projections on election night, especially early in the evening right after poll closings. Nonetheless, the cautious analysts at VRS still called all the races correctly in the 1992 election.”

The data could not be corrected until the official votes came in? Or was it that the data could not be rigged until the official votes came in? Of course the cautious analysts called the winner correctly – Clinton won easily – but they did not call the vote shares correctly. Clinton won by a much bigger margin than they said he did.

The 2000 Election Debacle
“Network competition to call winners culminated in the disastrous 2000 presidential election, when these systems of race projections broke down, and the networks wound up retracting their calls for the winner in Florida and presumptively the election, not once, but twice on election night. The trouble began early in the evening, when VNS alerted the networks around 7:50 p.m. that their statistical models predicted Al Gore the winner in Florida and that the networks should consider calling the state for Gore. This prediction took place even though only 4 percent of the actual vote had been counted and numerous precincts in the Florida panhandle, which happened to be in the central time zone, remained open until 8 p.m.”

If the exit polls show a clear winner – as they did in Florida – the fact that just 4% of the votes were recorded is irrelevant. The exit polls were completed by 7:50pm – and panhandle precincts were exit polled throughout the day. Calling the race 10 minutes before the polls closed was of no consequence. Gore won the Florida exit poll (1816 respondents) by a whopping 53.4-43.6%, far beyond the 3% margin of error.

“Less than ten minutes later, the decision desks at all the networks and the AP agreed with VNS and announced Gore the winner in Florida. Over the next hour-and-a-half, VNS discovered that vote-count data from Duval County had been entered incorrectly, making Gore appear as if he had many more votes than he actually did. After fixing this error, the statistical models used by VNS and decision desks at all the networks showed the race could no longer be projected safely for either candidate. By 10:18 p.m., all the networks announced they were moving the state back to the undecided category, prompting Jeff Greenfield of CNN to quip, “Oh waiter, one order of crow.””

Of the 185,000 spoiled ballots in Florida, 113,000 were double and triple punched – and Gore’s name was punched on 75% of them. Almost 30,000 overpunched ballots were in Duval County which has a large black population. Could the spoiled ballots have been the cause of the Duval adjustments?

“At 2:15 a.m., Fox News called Florida and the presidency for Bush. Within five minutes, NBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC followed suit, announcing that Bush would be the forty-third president of the United States. Meanwhile, VNS and the AP chose not to call the race in Florida a second time, wary of the volatility in the data with the contest that close. During the next couple hours, new errors were discovered. VNS had underestimated the number of votes remaining to be counted. Two counties—Volusia and Brevard—had mistakenly entered their vote totals in favor of Bush. Once these mistakes were corrected, the race narrowed considerably, so much so that Bush’s lead was inside the margin of error.”

What about the -16,022 Gore votes in Volusia? The media commentators called it a computer “glitch”. They always do. They never consider that it could have been the result of malicious coding.

“An embarrassment early in the evening had turned to a humiliation by the end, leading NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to remark, “We don’t just have egg on our face; we have an omelet.”

“Despite the resulting indignation, the exit polls were not responsible for the erroneous second call. In fact, the exit polls were at that point no longer part of the estimation models, having been replaced by actual vote counts—incorrect as they were in some cases—over the course of the evening.”

Replaced by actual vote counts? That is what the perpetrators wanted to do all along. The media never reported that Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5% (5.5 million votes) – way beyond the MoE. Or that he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll 48.5-46.2%, a 2.5 million margin. There were 5.4 million net uncounted votes. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 50.7%.

“However, the partisan skew in the measure of aggregate vote choice was higher than in previous elections. The preliminary data overstated the difference in the George W. Bush-John Kerry vote on election night by 5.5 percentage points, predicting a 51- to 48-percent advantage for Kerry rather than a 50.5- to 48-percent win for Bush.”

Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.0-47.9%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5%.

“This was the highest error in the preliminary results since the 1992 election and double the error found in the previous two presidential elections. The discrepancy between the preliminary exit poll findings and the final election results was even greater in the competitive states. The exit polls predicted a Kerry victory in four states—Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada—in which Bush won, and overstated Kerry’s support by 11 percentage points in Ohio, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 8 points in Florida.”

“Considering the closeness of the election, the exit polls seemed to suggest that Kerry was capable of winning the 2004 election. Political observers used these differences between the preliminary exit polls and the final results to support allegations of vote rigging and fraud in precincts deploying electronic voting machines, particularly in Ohio, where the state’s twenty-seven electoral votes, enough to change the winner of the Electoral College from Bush to Kerry, was decided by 118,775 ballots.”

The adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But in the 2000 election, Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes. He needed a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the 2004 recorded vote. Clearly a physical and mathematical impossibility.

“Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania calculated the odds of the exit polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida being as far off the final outcome as they were as 662,000 to 1.”

Note: The state exit poll margin of error (MoE) includes a 30% cluster factor.
In Pennsylvania, there were 2107 respondents (2.75%).
Kerry won the poll by 56.6-42.9%, an 800,000 vote margin.

In Ohio, there were 2020 respondents (2.82%).
Kerry won the poll by 54.1-45.7%, a 450,000 vote margin.

In Florida, there were 2862 respondents (2.38%).
Kerry won the poll by 50.8-48.2%, a 200,000 vote margin.

“The National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan group of mathematicians and statisticians promoting election reform, found that twenty-two of the forty-nine precincts in Ohio polled by Edison/Mitofsky had reported Kerry vote share results that had less than a 5 percent chance of occurring, based on the state’s exit polls.”

“Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., even used the exit polls as the basis for holding congressional hearings on vote irregularities in Ohio. Edison/Mitofsky disputed these charges in a follow-up report, contending that precincts with electronic voting had virtually the same rates of error as those using punch card systems.”

“They again attributed the bias to within-precinct error—error due to a systematic bias in the selection of voters within a precinct—and not to bias in the selection of precincts themselves. Bush voters were more likely to refuse to participate in the exit polls than Kerry voters. They hypothesized that the result was a function of the disproportionate numbers of interviewers under age thirty-five who administered the exit poll. Young people had more problems securing participation from voters than older respondents, perhaps because they were correctly perceived to have been more likely to have voted for Kerry.”

That is the same old discredited and debunked Reluctant Bush Responder canard that was refuted by the exit pollsters own data which showed that exit poll response was highest in partisan Bush precincts – and in strong Republican states.

“Edison/Mitofsky also found that voting patterns within electoral groups were accurate once they were weighted to the official results. They found no evidence that the distribution of presidential vote choices within various demographic groups was biased, despite the vote choice of exit poll respondents overall overstating Democratic support.”

The “overstating” of 56 Kerry respondents for every 50 Bush respondents was not due to differential response; it was due to the fact that Kerry won the election with about 53% of the vote.

“Since 2004, less controversy has surrounded the exit polls. No serious technical problems have surfaced during the last three elections, enabling the media to prepare analyses of the outcome in a timely manner. Leaks of early wave findings have been contained. The preliminary exit polls have continued to overstate support for Democratic candidates; however, the final vote counts have had such large winning margins that the projected outcomes were no different.”

There was less controversy in 2008 only because Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes. But the exit polls indicated that he won by nearly 23 million; the landslide was denied. The level of fraud was equivalent to 2004. Obama won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%. He won the independent True Vote Model with 58.0%, exactly matching the state exit polls. He won the recorded vote by just 52.9-45.6%. How does one explain the massive discrepancy? It was surely not due to differential response.

Selection of Precincts
“National exit pollsters choose precincts by taking stratified probability samples in each of the states before drawing a national subsample from the state samples. This process involves sorting the precincts in each state into different categories or strata to guarantee that particular groups are represented adequately. To begin, precincts in each state are initially grouped into two strata according to their size to ensure the selection of smaller precincts.”

“Within each of these size strata, precincts are categorized by geographic region, usually between three to five regions in each state. For each state geographic region, precincts are ordered by their percentage vote for one of the major political parties in a previous election. Precincts are sampled from these strata with probabilities proportionate to the total votes cast in them in a prior election, so that every precinct has as many chances of being picked by pollsters as it has voters. The samples drawn in each state are then combined, and a national sample of precincts is selected from them using a previous presidential race to determine the relative number of precincts chosen from each state.”

Sampling voters in proportion to the recorded vote in prior elections is a persistent source of bias, since the recorded votes were fraudulent and favored the Republicans. So the sampled exit polled precincts were over-weighted for the GOP.

“Typically, the total number of precincts selected in the national exit poll is between 250 and 300. Ultimately, the number of precincts chosen represents a tradeoff between sampling error and financial constraints. Research by Edison/Mitofsky has shown that the number of precincts selected has not been responsible for the Democratic overstatements that have continually appeared in the exit polls.”

“For example, they found that for the 2004 election the actual distribution of the presidential vote in the precincts used in the exit poll samples did not differ significantly from the actual vote distribution nationwide. In fact, these precincts overstated support for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, but only by 0.4 points, on average, across the states.”

Mitofsky believed that the exit poll precinct samples were perfect. But he also hypothesized that 56 Democrats responded for every 50 Republicans – even though his own data indicates that response rates were higher in partisan Bush precincts.

“Refusal rates, or for that matter miss rates, are not necessarily problematic, as long as the propensity of different groups to participate does not vary. However, if one group is more or less likely than other groups to complete exit surveys, their responses will be over or under-represented, thereby biasing estimates for the overall electorate. For example, the partisan overstatement repeatedly found in the national exit polls over the past several decades appears to be due to the greater willingness of Democratic voters to complete the exit polls, compared with their Republican counterparts. However, once this discrepancy has been corrected by weighting the exit polls to correspond with the actual vote, there has been no evidence that the vote estimates within groups are biased.”

Greater Democratic willingness to be exit polled is a myth -not a fact. The exit pollsters own data shows otherwise. In 2000, 2004 and 2008, Republican exit poll shares and vote shares were positively correlated (.25) to state exit poll response. Bush vote shares increased as response rates increased, refuting the Reluctant Republican Responder hypothesis. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

“National exit pollsters account for early/absentee voting by conducting telephone surveys in states where the rates of early voting are highest. VNS first incorporated early/absentee voting in 1996, surveying voters in California, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. By 2008, NEP was conducting telephone surveys in eighteen states, including Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, where the proportions of early voting were so high that no in-person exit polls were conducted on election day.”

Early voting data in the 2008 election indicates that Oregon, Washington, and Colorado had the lowest red-shifts. Was it just a coincidence that the states with the highest early voting rates were the ones which most closely matched the unadjusted exit polls?

Take the Election Fraud Probability Quiz.

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 August 18, 2012 in Election Myths, Media


Tags: , , , , ,

Winnebago County Walker Recall: A Probability Analysis of Differences between Optical Scan and Touch Screen Vote Counts

Winnebago County Walker Recall: A Probability Analysis of Optical Scan and Touch Screen Vote Counts

Richard Charnin
Aug. 14, 2012
Updated: Oct.27, 2013

Three independent models analyzed the Walker Recall election in Winnebago County. This post focuses on a probability analysis of DRE vs. Optical scanners. Summaries and links to the Cumulative County Vote Share graphical analysis and the County/Muni True Vote Model are also included. The three models confirm the very high probability of fraud.

Assume that the votes cast on Optical scanners and Touch screens are given for a location (ward, precinct). All things being equal, the vote shares should be nearly identical. But if they are not equal, is the difference significant? And if the difference is significant, what is the probability that it would be due to chance?

Note that this is not an exit poll analysis. The probabilities are based on actual recorded votes.

The probability of the discrepancy is a function of the following:
1) number of optical scanners and touch screens
2) vote share percentages on each

If the optical scan ballots are hand-counted, we can calculate the number of touch screen votes and vote shares by subtraction. We can then determine if the difference in vote shares between the touch screens and optical scanner is significant.

This spreadsheet is a probability calculator for the discrepancy between optiscan and touchscreen vote shares in a given ward/precinct.

The Z-score is based on the bell-curve (normal distribution). Z determines the probability of the difference between the touch screen and optical scan vote shares. If
Z = 1.65, the probability is 95.2% that the difference between touch screen and optical scan vote shares was not due to chance. Election Fraud is likely.
Z = 1.96, the probability is 97.5%
Z = 2.33, the probability is 99.0%

Assume that in a given location, we have:
nv = total number of votes
ns = number of optical scan ballots
wv = Walkers total vote
ps = Walker’s vote share on optical scanners

Then we can easily determine
nt = number of TSX (touch screen) votes = nv – ns
pt = Walker’s TSX share

We can then calculate the probability of the difference in vote shares between the optical scanners and touchscreens:
1) Difference in vote shares: Diff = pt-ps
2) Standard error: Std = sqrt [ps*(1-ps)/ns + pt*(1-pt)/nt]
3) Z-score = ABS(Diff) / Std
4) Probability (Diff) = 2-2*NORMSDIST(Z)

The following table is based on the Winnebago County spreadsheet in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model. It shows that the large discrepancies between Opscan and TSX shares in the following locations could not have all been due to chance.

Model 1. Winnebago Muni DRE/Opscan Differential Vote Share Probability (Walker 2-party%)


Menasha(3,5,6).65.64% 60.23% -5.41% 1.89 5.82%
Neenah.........63.14% 73.21% 10.08% 1.67 9.45%
Poygan.........62.81% 72.66% 9.85% 2.68 0.74%
Rushford.......58.48% 65.92% 7.44% 2.10 3.59%
Utica..........66.67% 75.17% 8.51% 2.08 3.78%

Neenah(13-16)..60.32% 53.68% -6.63% 1.74 8.20%
Neenah(17-20)..51.31% 64.10% 12.79% 2.77 0.57%
Oshkosh(5).....42.73% 32.98% -9.75% 1.85 6.46%
Oshkosh(15)....50.76% 40.00% -10.76% 2.89 0.38%
Oshkosh(17)....40.48% 47.66% 7.18% 1.91 5.66%

Oshkosh(28A)...44.96% 52.58% 7.61% 1.88 5.98%
Oshkosh(29A)...60.63% 73.68% 13.06% 2.24 2.48%

Poygan Village Votes Pct
2-Party Total

Vote Count.... 662 100%
Optiscan...... 406 61.33%
TSX DRE....... 256 38.67%
Total Votes... 441 66.62%
Optiscan...... 255 62.81%
DRE TSX....... 186 72.66%

Z-Score....... 2.68
Probability... 0.74% (of 9.85% vote share discrepancy between Optiscan and DRE)

Model 2: Winnebago County Cumulative VoteShares
Note the statistically improbable increase in Walker’s share.

Model 3: Winnebago True Vote (2-party)
Barrett won the True Vote with 53.5%, a 5000 vote margin.
Walker won the recorded vote with 56.4%, a 9000 vote margin.
Walker needed an implausible 29% of returning Obama 2008 voters to match his recorded vote.

2008... Share. Votes. Alive Turnout.Votes..... Mix. Barrett Walker Barrett Walker Margin

Obama...55.90% 48,137 45,971 80.00% 36,777.... 51.97% 89.93% 10.07% 33,075 3,702 29,372
McCain..44.10% 37,976 36,267 80.00% 29,014.... 41.00% 06.96% 93.04% 2,020 26,993 -24,973
New..................................4,976..... 7.03% 55.90% 44.10% 2,781 2,194 587
Total......... 86,113 82,238 80.00% 70,766

True Vote........................................... 53.52% 46.48% 37,876 32,890 4,986
Recorded Vote....................................... 43.60% 56.40% 30,885 39,881 -8,996

2012 votes / living 2008 voters:86.05%
2012 voters % of 2008: 82.18%
Est. votes flipped:6,991 18.46%

Sensitivity Analysis
Barrett won all 18 plausible voter turnout and vote share scenarios

2008 Voter turnout in 2012:77.00% 80.00% 83.00%
Required Walker % of Obama:30.08% 29.16% 28.31%

Voter Turnout.......................... Barrett share of
Obama McCain........................... Obama McCain
80% 80%................................. 90% 7%

......Barrett Share of Obama.................. Obama Turnout
Barrett 87.0% 90.0% 93.0%.......McCain...77.0% 80.0% 83.0%
%McCain....Barrett Share........Turnout......Barrett Share
9.96% 53.19% 54.75% 56.31%......... 77% 53.61% 54.28% 54.94%
6.96% 51.96% 53.52% 55.08%......... 80% 52.86% 53.52% 54.19%
3.96% 50.73% 52.29% 53.85%......... 83% 52.11% 52.77% 53.43%
...........Barrett Margin.....................Barrett Margin
9.96% 4,520 6,727 8,934............. 77% 5,112 6,051 6,990
6.96% 2,780 4,986 7,193............. 80% 4,047 4,986 5,925
3.96% 1,039 3,245 5,452............. 83% 2,983 3,921 4,860

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis