A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
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.
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
Peter G. McCaffery
December 8, 2012 at 10:36 am
Last few lines of your posting dated Dec.7, 2012, as downloaded to my computer (via Firefox):
Obama.. Obama Election Day Share (%)
Early. 49.0 52.0 56.0
Share.. Share (%)
56…. 52.1 53.9 56.3 < True Vote
55…. 51.8 53.6 55.0
49…. 49.9 51.7 54.0
56…. 5.36 9.87 15.89 < True Vote
55…. 4.55 9.06 15.08
49….-0.30 4.22 10.23
This clearly needs re-formatting. But I can't figure out how the columns should be laid out.
December 8, 2012 at 11:20 am
Just lay them out as you see it.
Or copy from here.
December 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
The matrix is correct. There is nothing to change. I do not understand what you mean when you say that it needs re-formatting.
The matrix shows a range of nine scenarios of Obama’s election day vote share and early voting share. The recorded share scenario is (49%,55%) = 51.8% (4.55 million margin).
How else would you represent it other than as a 9-element matrix?