Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size
Richard Charnin
Dec.18,2012
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.
Examination of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.
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
Richard Charnin's Blog 
One response to “Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size”