The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation
Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2013
According to the adjusted 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls, there were millions more returning Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 voters from the previous election than were still living – a mathematical impossibility and proof of election fraud beyond any doubt.
It’s obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than the number who voted in the prior election. Approximately 5% of voters pass in the four years between elections. ALL exit polls are adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote. It’s no secret. It’s the standard, stated policy of the National Election Pool. The insane rationale for the forced match is that the recorded vote is always fraud-free. But the real reason is to hide the extent of fraudulent vote miscounting.
The adjusted, published exit poll is a Matrix of Deceit. The True Vote Model (TVM) replaces the impossible, forced adjustments made to the unadjusted exit polls with a feasible, plausible estimate of returning voters.
The TVM applies to all elections, not just national. Presidential elections are used in this analysis as they are well-known; historical data is readily available. The TVM has been used to analyze congressional, senate and recall elections – and has uncovered strong evidence of fraud.
A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) is an application based on Matrix Algebra. The key to understanding the theory is mathematical subscript notation. The actual mathematics is really nothing more than simple arithmetic.
The model is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). Calculation methods are the following:
1- National Exit Poll
(returning voters (and vote shares) adjusted to match the fraudulent recorded vote)
True Vote Methods: Returning voters based on the previous election
2- recorded vote
3- votes cast (including allocated uncounted votes)
4- unadjusted national exit poll
5- True Vote
The National True Vote Model is based on total votes cast in the previous and current election. The True Vote Model (TVM) is a set of linear equations which calculate each candidate’s share of a) previous election returning voters and b) new voters who did not vote in the previous election.
National Exit Poll vote shares were used to calculate the True Vote in each election- except for 2004. At 12:22am, 13047 exit poll respondents indicated that Kerry was a 51-48% winner. The final 613 respondents (13660) and the returning 2000 voter mix were both adjusted in order to match the recorded vote (Bush 51-48%). Both sets of adjustments were impossible. It was only years later that the complete 2004 unadjusted exit poll was released. It showed that Kerry won the 13660 respondents by 51-47.5%.
The US Vote Census provides an estimate of the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.
The 1988-2012 State True Vote Model is based on returning state voters. The Governor, senate and congressional True Vote models work the same way.
Sensitivity Matrix: alternative scenarios
These tables gauge the sensitivity of the total candidate vote shares to changes in their shares of returning and new voters.
In 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). However, at the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline (13047 respondents), Kerry had 91% of returning Gore voters, 10% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters. In this base case scenario, Kerry had a 53.6% True Vote share and 10.7 million vote margin.
Sensitivity analysis indicates that Kerry won all plausible (and implausible) scenarios. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters to win the fraudulent recorded vote.
Adjusting the base case vote shares to view worst case scenarios:
1) Kerry has 91% (no change) of returning Gore voters, just 8% of returning Bush voters and 53% of New voters. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.1% and a 7.2 million winning margin.
2) Kerry has just 89% of returning Gore voters, 8% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters (no change). Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.0% and a 6.9 million margin.
3) Assume the base case vote shares, but change the 98% returning 2000 voter turnout rate to 94% for Gore and 100% for Bush. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.7% and a 8.5 million margin.
4) Assume the base case 98% turnout of returning Gore and Bush voters and 91% Kerry share of returning Gore voters. To match the fraudulent recorded vote, Bush needed 61% of New voters compared to his 41% exit poll share. He also needed 96% of returning Bush voters compared to his 90% exit poll share. The required shares easily exceeded the 2% margin of error. The probabilities are infinitesimal.
Returning voters
The number of returning voters (RV) is estimated based on previous election voter mortality (5%) and an estimated turnout rate (TR).
Let TVP = total votes cast the in previous election.
Let TVC = total votes cast in the current election.
In 2000, 110.8 million votes (TVP) were cast. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years. In the base case, we assume equal 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. We calculate (RV) returning 2000 voters:
RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR
RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98
In 2004, 125.7 million votes were cast. The number of new 2004 voters (TVN) is the difference between 2004 votes cast (TVC) and returning 2000 voters (RV):
TVN = TVC – RV
TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2
Matrix notation
V (1) = returning Democratic voters
V (2) = returning Republican voters
V (3) = returning other (third-party) voters
RV = V (1) + V (2) + V (3) = total returning voters
V (4) = TVC – RV = number of new voters.
Calculate m (i) as the percentage mix of total votes cast (TVC) for returning and new voters V(i):
m (i) = V (i) / TVC, i=1, 4
Let a (i, j) = candidates (j=1,3) vote shares of returning and new voters (i=1,4).
True Vote calculation matrix
Vote Mix Dem Rep Other
Dem m1 a11 a12 a13
Rep m2 a21 a22 a23
Oth m3 a31 a32 a33
Dnv m4 a41 a42 a43
The total Democratic share is:
VS(1) = ∑ m(i) * a(i, 1), i=1,4
VS(1)= m(1)*a(1,1) + m(2)*a(2,1) + m(3)*a(3,1) + m(4)*a(4,1)
Republican share:
VS(2)= m(2)*a(1,2) + m(2)*a(2,2) + m(3)*a(3,2) + m(4)*a(4,2)
Third-party share:
VS(3)= m(3)*a(1,3) + m(2)*a(2,3) + m(3)*a(3,3) + m(4)*a(4,3)
Mathematical vote share constraints
Returning and new voter mix percentages must total 100%.
∑m (i) =100%, i= 1, 4
Candidate shares of returning and new voters must total 100%.
∑a (1, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (2, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (3, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (4, j) =100%, j=1, 3
Democratic + Republican + third-party vote shares must total 100%.
∑ VS (i) = 100%, i=1,3
Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (match recorded vote)
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 45.25 37% 90% 10% 0.0% 93.4%
Bush 52.59 43. 9.0 91. 0.0 109.7 (impossible)
Other 3.67 3.0 64. 14. 22. 97.7
DNV. 20.79 17. 54. 44. 2.0 -
Total 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 101.4%
2004 True Vote Model
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 52.13 41.5% 91% 9.0% 0% 98%
Bush 47.36 37.7 10.0 90.0 0.0 98
Other 3.82 3.00 64.0 14.0 22. 98
DNV. 22.42 17.8 57.0 41.0 2.0 -
Total 125.7 100% 53.5% 45.4% 1.0% 98%
Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Pct 39.% 55.% 57.% 59.% 61.%
of Bush........ Kerry % Vote Share
12% 51.1 54.0 54.3 54.7 55.1
11% 50.7 53.6 54.0 54.3 54.7
10% 50.4 53.2 53.6 53.9 54.3
9.% 50.0 52.9 53.2 53.6 53.9
4.% 48.1 51.0 51.3 51.7 52.1
............... Kerry Margin
12% 4.6 11.8 12.8 13.6 14.6
11% 3.7 10.9 11.8 12.7 13.6
10% 2.7 10.0 10.9 11.8 12.7
9.% 1.8 9.0 9.91 10.8 11.7
4% -2.9 4.3 5.18 6.08 7.00
..........Returning Gore Voter Turnout
Bush 94.% 95.% 96.% 97.% 98.%
Turnout..... Kerry % Vote Share
96% 53.4 53.5 53.7 53.8 53.9
97% 53.2 53.3 53.5 53.6 53.8
98% 53.0 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.6
99% 52.8 53.0 53.1 53.3 53.4
100% 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.1 53.2
............... Kerry Margin
96% 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.4 11.8
97% 9.86 10.3 10.6 10.9 11.3
98% 9.42 9.78 10.1 10.5 10.9
99% 8.97 9.33 9.69 10.1 10.4
100% 8.52 8.88 9.24 9.60 9.96
Richard Charnin's Blog 