Monthly Archives: December 2012

Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 23, 2012
Updated: Aug.2, 2015

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there were repetitive patterns in the cumulative county vote shares in five recent Wisconsin elections. The patterns are obvious; the county graphs are virtual duplicates.

This post is a work-in-process, but since the data tables and graphs are completed, I wanted to make them available while the analysis is ongoing.

The following counties appear most anomalous: Brown, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Croix, Milwaukee, Oneida, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Sheboygan, Trempealeau, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago.

Republican vote shares are increasing (lines slope upward) while Democratic shares decrease (slope downward) at the same rate. This is an indicator of likely vote switching.

Summary of Key Walker Recall Results
Walker won the recall by 171,000 votes (53.1-46.8%).

In 15 large counties, Barrett’s vote shares at 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 54.2%, 52.1% and 48.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.51 million of the total 2.52 million recorded votes.

Milwaukee County is the largest and most anomalous. In the recall, Barrett had 63.3% of the total 396,000 votes. But he had 74.4% at the 25% mark, 70.4% at 50% and 66.5% at 75%. Looking at Barrett’s shares in terms of remaining votes, he had 59.4% of the final 75%, 55.9% of the final 50% and 53.0% of the final 25%. In other words there was a 21.4% decline in Barrett’s 74.4% vote share of the first 100,000 votes to 53.0% in the final 100,000 votes.

Barrett’s True Vote Model 54.4% share is within 0.2% of his 15 county cumulative share at the 25% mark. His total Wisconsin share (assuming an equal level of fraud in the other 57 counties) was 52.4%.

In the 15 counties, there was a 6.0% difference between Barrett’s 54.2% at the 25% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 6.1% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 52.4% Wisconsin True Vote share.

In the 15 counties, there was a 4.0% difference between Barrett’s 52.1% at the 50% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 4.0% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 50.3% Wisconsin True Vote share.

2008 Presidential Election
The cumulative vote analysis essentially confirmed the unadjusted exit poll. Obama won the WI recorded vote by 56.2-42.7%. He won the unadjusted exit poll 63.3-35.7%, a 7.1% increase over the recorded vote share.

In 15 of the largest counties, Obama’s vote shares at the 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 62.4%, 60.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.85 million (62%) of the 2.98 million total recorded votes.

Democratic votes shares declined by an average of 6.0% from the 25% mark to the final recorded vote:

15 Wisconsin Counties
Democratic Vote Share Trend
15 Wisconsin Counties
(Votes in thousands)
.................... Percent of total vote

15 Counties Votes 25% 50% 100% Change
2008 Obama 1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07% 5.31%
2010 Feingold 1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69% 6.02%
2010 Barrett 1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23% 6.81%
2012 Barrett 1551 54.24% 52.11% 48.14% 6.10%
2014 Burke 1511 53.96% 52.22% 48.50% 5.46%

The Spreadsheets
The following spreadsheets use data provided by GAB. Note that Milwaukee County is displayed at the top of the screen in each spreadsheet to illustrate the similar cumulative vote pattern in each of the four elections.

2014 Governor

2012 Walker recall (contains voting machine types for each county and municipality).

2010 Governor

2010 Senate

2008 Presidential

In the process of working on analysis of Wisconsin elections, I have developed a number of models and databases which are available online as Google Doc spreadsheets. They can be linked to from the following posts:


Tags: , , ,

Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size

Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size

Richard Charnin
Updated: Oct.28, 2013

This is a cumulative vote trend analysis of the Walker Recall by increasing unit/ward vote counts. The data had already been included in The Walker Recall True Vote Database Model. Each county was sorted by size of Unit/Ward. Cumulative vote shares for Walker and Barrett were calculated and the graphs were generated.

The cumulative vote trend graphics is similar to Francois Choquette’s. analysis of the GOP Primaries and Prop.37.

Note the upward sloped lines for Walker in Milwaukee, Racine, Winnebago, Waukesha counties. The Law of Large numbers is violated; we would expect flat or slightly upward sloping lines for Barrett since Democratic shares are usually higher in larger urban wards than in smaller rural ones.

If the lines are flat or upward sloping for Walker, this is an indicator of vote miscount favoring Walker.


The Law of Large Numbers

As the vote count increases, the cumulative vote shares should hardly change (the lines should be nearly flat). But if they diverge, there must be some external factor causing it. It could very well be the FRAUD FACTOR.

Consider this baseball analogy. Why do batting averages fluctuate so greatly in the spring, but less and less as the season progresses? The Law of Large Numbers. Batting average= Total base hits/Total At Bats

Vote share for Walker= Walker Votes/Total Votes (but the Law of Large numbers was violated in the election)

The following counties appear to be the most anomalous: Brown, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Shawano, Sheboygan, Walworth, Waukesha and Winnebago. Why would Barrett’s vote shares in Milwaukee County decline with increasing ward size? Presumably, larger wards are more Democratic than smaller wards. If anything, one would expect the lines to DIVERGE OR AT LEAST REMAIN PARALLEL – NOT CONVERGE.

The Wisconsin True Vote Model indicated that Barrett had 66.0% in Milwaukee compared to his 63.6% recorded share. In Brown, 52.2% vs. 40.0%, Racine 51.5% vs. 46.9%, Sheboygan 47.4% vs. 35.3%; Winnebago 53.5% vs. 43.6%.

Why would Barrett’s Milwaukee County cumulative BLUE vote shares decline while Walker’s RED shares slope upward? It’s a red flag which indicates vote miscounting.

Winnebago County


Tags: ,

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 1, 2013

Given 1) early voting (mail-in or hand-delivered paper ballots) and 2) late vote (absentees, provisional ballots) and 3) the total recorded vote, what is the Election Day vote share required to match the recorded vote?

This 2012 election fraud analysis shows that Obama’s Election Day vote share was 3% lower than his total recorded share (a 6% discrepancy in margin). It is a strong indicator that votes were stolen on Election Day. Obama’s late vote share was 10% higher than his Election Day share.

In 2012, there were 11.677 million late recorded votes (9.0% of the total). The late vote for each state is the difference between the current and Election Day votes. Obama had 60.2% of the two-party late vote and 51.96% of the total two-party vote.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama’s weighted aggregate state late vote was 57-39%, just 1% lower than the weighted exit polls and the True Vote. In 2012, it was 54-42%, closely matching the 56% two-party True Vote model share.

In 2008, approximately 30% of total votes were cast early. Early vote rates for each state were set to the 2008 rate. Early vote shares were based on information supplied to the media. If the early vote estimate was not available, the assumption is that Obama did 2-3% lower in early voting than late.

Obama’s True Vote margin is estimated to be 15.7 million (56.1-43.9%).

Total Votes Recorded = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote

In order to determine the Election Day vote, a simple trial and error (goal-seeking) procedure was used by adjusting the Election Day share until the total share matched the recorded vote. This is analogous to the exit pollsters stated procedure of adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote in each demographic cross tab by changing weights and/or vote shares. The National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote in a number of elections by adjusting actual exit poll results using mathematically impossible weightings (millions more returning voters from the previous election than were alive to vote in the current election).

In this analysis, we use actual early and late recorded vote data to determine the Election Day 2-party share required to match the total recorded vote. We use “goal-seeking” to determine the fraud component that the media ignores.

On Election Day, Votes cast on optical scanners and DREs are vulnerable to miscounts on the central tabulators.

Percent of total vote: Early 52%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (49.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 25%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.4%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 36%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (51.1%), Romney needed 70% on Election Day.

North Carolina (zero late vote?)
Percent of total vote: Early 60%; Late 0%
To match his 2-party share (47.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 45%; Late 27%
To match his 2-party share (38.1%), Romney needed 46% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 29%
To match his 2-party share (54.9%), Romney needed 60% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 14%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.0%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

New Mexico
Percent of total vote: Early 62%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (45.1%), Romney needed 48% on Election Day.

Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 1%
To match his 2-party share (53.1%), Romney needed 58% on Election Day.

National Vote – forced to match the recorded share
How Voted (2-party)………….Votes Pct Obama Romney
Early voting (paper)…………40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0%
Election Day…………………75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0%
Late Votes (paper)…………..11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%

Recorded Share……….126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%
Total Votes (mil)………………………… 65.85 60.98

…….. Obama Election Day %
…….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early Obama Share
56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4%
55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1%
49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1%
56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2
55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4
49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5


Posted by on December 7, 2012 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 809 other followers