2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

02 Jan

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2013
Updated: Aug.31, 2015

An objective analysis of the 2012 election shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. The 2012 True Vote Model indicates that Obama had an approximate 55-43% True Vote (a 15 million margin) and overcame the systemic 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won the recorded vote by just 51.0-47.2% (a 5.0 million margin) .

Media Gospel
Media pundits, academics and politicians are quick to accept the recorded result in every election as gospel. But the landslide was denied, just like it was in 2008 and six previous elections.

Exit pollsters always assume that both prior and current elections were fair but that the exit poll samples were biased. So they adjust exit poll weights and vote shares to match the sacrosanct recorded vote. They never consider the possibility that the exit poll sampling was good but that the elections were fraudulent.

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls. In 2012, just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents a calculation of the total aggregate vote share.

Unadjusted 2012 state and national presidential exit polls have not been made available. Furthermore, in another omission, the How Voted in 2008 category was not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll demographic cross tabs displayed on media polling websites.

Is it just a coincidence that the past vote has consistently been a key factor in proving systemic election fraud in every election since 1988? In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Poll indicated millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than actually voted. 

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on exit poll transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to view raw unadjusted exit poll data. Why is the NEP hiding this critical information? There can only be one reason: the data would provide absolute proof that the elections were fraudulent. If election fraud was non-existent, the data would have been released. But a robust statistical analysis of the red-shift to the GOP in state and national unadjusted exit polls proves beyond all doubt that election fraud is systemic.

Conspiracy Theory?
Those not convinced by the overwhelming statistical and factual evidence and still maintain that election fraud is just a conspiracy theory are welcome to try and refute the following analysis.

Naysayers claim that Obama stole the 2012 election. They cite as proof the fact that he won 100% of the vote in 59 black Philadelphia precincts. They consider it impossible. They are wrong. It is entirely possible. This math proof will put an end to this canard.

If the 2008 election was not fraudulent, then the 2008 recorded vote (Obama had 52.9%, a 9.5 million vote margin) is a reasonable basis for estimating returning voters in 2012. Assuming plausible vote shares applied to returning and new voters results in a close match to Obama’s recorded margin.

On the other hand, if the 2008 election was fraudulent, then Obama’s 2008 unadjusted state 58.0% exit poll aggregate, 61.0% unadjusted National Exit Poll and 58.0% True Vote Model shares were essentially correct. Using the 58.0% share as the basis for estimating returning voters in 2012 (and applying the same plausible vote shares as above) Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 56.1-43.9% (2-party), a 15.5 million margin.

There are some who believe that Election Fraud was thwarted in 2012 by the Anonymous hack or government oversight. These factors may have prevented some late vote-rigging. But the True Vote Model and Late Vote results were consistent with 2008. Vote switching algorithms were in effect on Election Day in most states. Why should 2012 have been any different?

Smoking Gun: The Past Vote
All 2012 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were posed to 25,000 respondents, but the most important one is missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? The past vote question was always asked before 2012. In at least four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008), the returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted NEP was mathematically (and physically) impossible. Each poll indicated that there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a clear indication of a fraudulent vote count.

Problem:Calculate by trial and error the average number of voters per Philadelphia division required for Obama to have 100% in 59 divisions. Assume that Obama had 97% of blacks  in 1700 divisions, 59 of which  voted 100% for Obama

Calculate the probability that 100% of voters in 59 Philadelphia divisions voted for Obama. Estimate an average of 182 voters/division. The  Margin of Error=3.22% for N=182 voters; Obama 97% share; 0.3 Cluster effect. Then there is  a 3.4% (1 in 29) probability that a division voted 100% for Obama ( 59 total, where 59 = 1700/29.)

The 2012 True Vote Model rectifies the NEP return voter anomaly by calculating feasible estimates of returning voters from the prior election.

Sensitivity Analysis
Pollsters and pundits and academics never analyze alternative returning voter turnout and corresponding vote share scenarios. Is it because a sensitivity analysis would reveal scenarios that they would rather not talk discuss?

The 2012 True Vote Model base case assumed that:
1. Obama won the 2008 True Vote: 58%-40.3%
2. A 95% turnout of Obama and McCain voters in 2012
3. Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters;7% of McCain
4. Obama had 59% of new voters; McCain had 41%
In this base case scenario, Obama had a 56.1% (two-party) True Vote Share and won by 15.5 million votes.

Romney needed to win 18% of returning Obama voters and 93% of returning McCain voters in order to match the recorded share (given the 2008 voter turnout assumption). In other words, there had to be an implausible 11% net defection of Obama voters to Romney.

Given the base case vote assumptions, Romney needed an implausibly low 72% turnout of Obama 2008 voters and a 95% turnout of McCain voters in order to match the recorded vote.

2008 National Exit Poll
To put the base case assumptions in context, let’s review the 2008 National Exit Poll. Obama had 89% of returning Kerry voters, 17% of returning Bush voters and 72% of those who did not vote in 2004. In order to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%), the poll indicated an impossible 46% (60.3 million) of the 2008 electorate were returning Bush voters and just 37% (48.6 million) were returning Kerry voters. It implies that 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned to vote in 2008.

On the other hand, assume a) that Kerry won the 2004 True Vote by 53.7-45.3% and therefore b) 47.5% of the 2004 electorate were returning Kerry voters vs. 40% Bush voters, then Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share.

The Late Vote – a True Vote Confirmation
The recurring pattern of Democratic presidential late vote shares exceeding the Election Day shares by approximately 7% is further confirmation of fraud. In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48.1% in the 117.4 million votes cast early and on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% margin in the 11.7 votes recorded Late. Nearly half of his total margin came from late votes.

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 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 exit polls; 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 won the weighted aggregate state late vote by 57.4-38.6%, within 1% of the weighted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the late vote by 54.0-41.8%. The 12.2% margin exactly matched the 2-party True Vote Model (56.1-43.9%). The fact that the weighted late shares matched the True Vote Model in both 2008 and 2012 is compelling evidence that the Late vote is fairly representative of the electorate.

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day vote shares.

Red Shift
There was an overwhelmingly one-sided exit poll red-shift to the Republicans in all presidential elections since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The True Vote Model indicates a 53-41% margin, yet they won the official recorded vote by just 48-46%. The final published exit polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water.

National Exit Poll Crosstab Adjustments
The 2012 National Exit Poll Party-ID category indicates a 39D-32R-29I split. Was the unadjusted Democratic share lowered to force a match to the recorded vote?

Let’s consider the 2004 and 2008 elections.The 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a 45.5D-27.3R-27.2I Party-ID split. It was adjusted to 39/32/29 to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, the Democrats led the pre-election Party ID polling by 38-35-27. The split was changed to 37-37-26 in the adjusted NEP to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, Bush had a 48% average approval rating in 11 pre-election polls and a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate. The rating was adjusted to 53% in the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote.

2012 True Vote Model
Voted...2008 2012 2-party vote shares
2008 Implied Votes Mix Obama Romney
DNV.......... 10.4 8.20% 59.0% 41.0%
Obama...58.0% 67.6 53.3% 90.0% 7.00%
McCain..40.4% 46.9 37.0% 7.00% 93.0%
Other...1.60% 1.90 1.50% 50.0% 50.0%

Total…100% 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9%
Votes…………..126.8 71.1 55.7

2012 Sensitivity Analysis
….Pct of returning Obama
…. 82.5% 90.0% 92.0%
…..Obama 2-party Share
10% 53.1% 57.2% 58.3%
7% 51.9% 56.1% 57.1%
4% 50.8% 54.9% 56.0%
……. Margin
10% 7.8 18.2 21.0
7% 5.0 15.4 18.1
4% 2.1 12.5 15.3

Sensitivity Analysis I: 2008 WAS FRAUDULENT
Obama had 58.0% (True Vote)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning Obama 2008 voters
Pct EV Share Margin
90% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
88% 371 54.97% 12,614
86% 333 53.89% 9,864
84% 318 52.80% 7,113
82% 315 51.72% 4,362 Recorded

b)Obama 90% of returning Obama
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
90% 371 55.05% 12,807
85% 333 53.95% 10,032
80% 318 52.77% 7,018
77% 318 52.00% 5,083 Recorded

Sensitivity Analysis II: 2008 WAS NOT FRAUDULENT
Obama had 52.9% (recorded)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning 2008 Obama voters
Pct EV Share Margin
91% 332 52.16% 5,491 Recorded
90% 303 51.67% 4,238
88% 285 50.68% 1,730
86% 272 49.69% -777
84% 253 48.71% -3,285

b)Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 303 51.67% 4,238 Recorded
93% 303 51.25% 3,177
91% 285 50.82% 2,087
89% 285 50.38% 964
87% 272 49.92% -191

Late Vote Confirms the True Vote
Year 2pty Obama Repub Other Margin
2008 59.8 57.4 38.6 4.0 18.8 late
2008 59.0 58.0 40.3 1.7 17.7 true
2012 56.4 54.0 41.8 4.2 12.2 late
2012 56.1 55.0 43.0 2.0 12.0 true

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2004 Sample Kerry Bush Other
Total 13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 100.0% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 125.7 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%
Votes…… 125.7 65.1 58.8 1.8

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(17,836 respondents)
2008 Sample Obama McCain Other
Total 17.836 10,873 6,641 322
Share 100.0% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

2008 Party ID
2008 Sample Dem Rep Other
Total 17,774 8,096 4,851 4,827
Share 100.0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.2%

Final 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…4.60% 5.30 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes…………. 131.5 69.50 59.95 2.02

How Voted in 2004
Voted Kerry Bush Other DNV Total
2004….1,815 1,614 188 561 4,178
Share…43.5% 38.6% 4.5% 13.4% 100%

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…50.2% 57.1 43.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush… 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes………….. 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

2008 True Vote Model
(Returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 True Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV………. 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…1.00% 1.16 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes…………. 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1


Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Projected: 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 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


Posted by on January 2, 2013 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models


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

5 responses to “2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

  1. Raccoon

    January 2, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    Dear Dr Charnin

    Thank you for your posting. I have been so impressed with your analysis. I watched your lecture on the vote rigging on YouTube. I was shocked at how genuine exit polls can be compromised by a fraudulent recorded ballots and the alleged red shift is permanently justified by being reflected in the adjusted exit polls.

    As you might know, there was an presidential election in South Korea last December, and many Koreans suspect an election fraud for many reasons.

    I wonder if you would spare some time for us to consider the possibility of the election fraud by examining the following document.

    More than anything else we are appalled by the clean logistic curves that apparently reflect the ballots two candidates acquired over time. Is it possible in a real election?

    I wish our country had a conscientious statistician like you.

    I hope the truth you revealed be shared by as many people as possible.



    • Richard Charnin

      January 2, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      Thank you very much for the comment. It appears that you have done a tremendous job analyzing the South Korean presidential election. Quite frankly, there is nothing I can add. Your presentation of graphs, tables and mathematical analysis of vote patterns is extremely impressive.

      Best of luck.

      • Raccoon

        January 3, 2013 at 2:53 am

        The document has been drawn up not by me but by some Korean-American truth-seekers in the states. They must be hugely encouraged by your support. But I don’t think they are experts and they might need some help from an election fraud specialist like you.

        Thanks again.

  2. Tcgyver

    January 3, 2013 at 4:04 am

    What do you think of this?
    “All one needs to do is to look at the precinct level data and find precincts where the numbers do not look right. If the people are behind making sure their elections are conducted fairly, they will likely be willing to sign affidavits as to which candidate they selected. With this information, you can compare the affidavits totals to the official totals. If the numbers do not match you have excellent evidence that fraud has indeed occurred. This needs to be done in several precincts to verify the hypothesis. If the fraud was performed artfully, not every precinct will show the same percentage. If it mirrors that program I wrote for the Republicans in 2000, none of the percentages will be identical.”
    Thanks for your info and time.

  3. MalleusMaleficarum

    January 7, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Richard Charnin has just exposed a huge crime. Is anybody in government or law enforcement taking any notice? What is the Elections Fraud Unit in the Department of Justice doing? Twiddling their thumbs while reorganizing the paper clip boxes? Election fraud in the USA is a scandal of enormous proportions. When will the Senate Judiciary committee have the time to investigate?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

%d bloggers like this: