Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.19, 2014
Update: Aug. 16, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

After 12 years of posting election fraud statistical models, I decided not to forecast the 2014 election or do a post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud was  proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed, the media remains mute on the fraud and congress refuses to do anything about it.

I  had worked closely with Wisconsin election reform activists on the 2011 Supreme Court election, the state recalls and Walker recall.   When I was asked to look into the 2014 WI governor election, I felt like Al Pacino in Godfather III: Just when I thought I was out of it, they pulled me back in again. Since I decided to bypass 2014, I did not even know who was running against Walker.

The key to understanding how elections are rigged is to study the exit polls and cumulative vote shares.The pattern keeps repeating: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It’s a fact. The pollsters admit it, but claim it is to correct the errant polls.  The assumption is that the recorded vote count is pristine and there is no fraud. At least that is what the pollsters and pundits would like us to believe.

Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, so we are left with the adjusted polls (national, state, governor) for clues. In order to adjust the exit poll to match the recorded vote, the returning voter mix from the previous election and/or each candidate’s share of returning and new voters must be changed. All crosstabs must be adjusted. I have stated this often in posts as far back as 2004 as well as in my books. In turned out that the 2014 WI election was 2012 deja vu all over again.

To analyze the 2014 Wisconsin Governor race, I created 2014WIGov.  It contains the following worksheets (sheet names in quotes):
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Gov. Exit Poll (‘WI Exit Poll’)
– 2014 Wisconsin County Vote vs. 2012 Recall Vote (“Counties’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)

View the: 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model

The 2014 WI Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  tracks cumulative vote shares for each county based on increasing unit/ward voting size. The odd pattern of increasing Walker vote shares in large Democratic counties is similar to the 2012 WI recall. This counter-intuitive trend is highly indicative of fraud. View the  2014 Wisconsin Governor Cumulative County/Ward Vote shares and graphs

2014 National Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of cross tabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.1% of the recorded vote. The theoretical margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of the 0.1% adjusted exit poll deviation from the recorded vote is close to zero – only because the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure -and obviously unscientific. It’s like a serial thief daring the police to stop him, but they don’t even though they have his fingerprints.

WI Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Like virtually all exit polls, it was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning voters to favor the GOP. Returning Walker voters comprised 50% of the 2014 vote total while Barrett voters at 35%. The 15% differential is much higher than Walker’s 7% recorded margin in 2012. But consider that Barrett likely won the 2012 True Vote by 6% – and a whopping 21% discrepancy in margin. Just as in every presidential exit poll, the returning voter percentages were implausible. How could there be a 15% excess of returning Walker 2012 voters over returning Barrett voters?

In the “How Voted in 2012” cross tab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). The result is a Walker landslide by 55.4-43.1%, a whopping 12.3% margin. But he had a bogus 52.9% recorded share. The two basic clues that the 2014 election was fixed are obvious from the adjusted exit poll:
1) The 2012 returning voter mix is highly implausible.
2) Vote shares for 14% of the 2014 electorate are not available.

The standard election fraud “tell” is that the returning voter mix has been adjusted to increase the Republican share. When the mix is changed to a feasible Barrett/Walker 45/41% mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%

WISCONSIN 2014 EXIT POLL (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER..........Pct Burke Walker
Male............49% 39.0% 60.0%
Female..........51% 54.0% 45.0%
Total..........100% 46.7% 52.4%
Recorded........... 47.1% 52.9%
Difference........ -0.46% -0.54%

VOTED IN 2012 RECALL (suspicious turnout in 2014 and 14% na)
2012……………….. Pct Burke Walker
Tom Barrett……..35% 96.0% 04.0%
Scott Walker…….50% 05.0% 94.0%
Other ………………3% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
DNV ……………….11% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
Recorded…………99% 43.1% 55.4%

TRUE VOTE
……………………..Pct Burke Walker
Tom Barrett…… 45% 96.0% 4.0% (set to plausible 45/41% returning voter mix)
Scott Walker……41% 05.0% 94.0%
Other……………..3% 50.0% 50.0%
DNV………………11% 52.0% 48.0% (adjust new voter shares)
TOTAL………….100% 52.5% 47.1%

TRUE VOTE MODEL

The model is based on 2012 returning voters and 2014 vote share percentages. In the Base Case scenario, Burke had 52.2%  and won by 107,000 votes.

1) Barrett had a 53% True Vote in the 2012 recall
2) 93% turnout of 2012 living voters in 2014
3) Burke had 92% of returning Barrett voters
4) Burke had 7% of returning Walker voters
5) Burke had 54% of new voters.

The Sensitivity analysis shows Burke’s total vote shares and margins for alternative scenarios of vote share and turnout of 2012 voters.

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES

Counties
In 2014, there was a significant 0.24 correlation between Walker’s  county votes and turnout (it was 0.28 in the 2012 recall). This measure indicates that as turnout increased, so did Walker’s vote share. But this is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats. Burke’s total vote dropped by 61,500 (2.57%) from the 25% mark.

County size
Burke’s share fell by 4.8% in the largest 15 counties, but increased by 2.3% in the middle 15 and 0.67% in the 15 smallest. This is a strong indicator of fraud in the biggest counties.

Democratic strongholds
Burke’s share fell by 6.5% in counties in which she was leading the 25% vote mark. This is an indicator of fraud in Democratic strongholds.

Correlation
There was a -0.37 statistical correlation between the change in Burke’s county shares and county vote size. This is another indicator of fraud in the biggest counties (primarily Milwaukee).

Democratic Vote Share Trend - 15 counties
Election.....Votes..25%...50%..100% Change
Average.......1532 56.1% 53.8% 50.1% 5.9%

2008 Obama……..1853 62.4% 60.7% 57.1% 5.3%
2010 Feingold……1375 54.7% 52.5% 48.7% 6.0%
2010 Barrett……..1372 55.0% 51.9% 48.2% 6.8%
2012 Barrett……..1551 54.2% 52.1% 48.1% 6.1%
2014 Burke……….1511 53.0% 52.2% 48.5% 5.5%

Vote change…..Vote….25%…50%..75%..100%
Votes…………..-61.49 1,174 1,158 1,133 1,113
% Change…………….-2.57 -0.67 -1.07 -0.84

…………..Vote..25%..50%..75%..100%….Correl..% Change
Total……2,385 49.2 48.5 47.5 46.6.. -0.37… -2.6
Top 15…1,573 53.4 52.0 50.2 48.6.. -0.23… -4.8
Mid 15……242 41.0 41.2 41.6 43.1…..   0.01…  2.1
Low 15……..73 43.5 42.6 42.7 43.7….. 0.11…. 0.2
Dem>50% 935 67.3 65.2 62.7 60.8.. -0.35… -6.5

HISTORICAL PRESIDENTIAL EXIT POLLS

A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60.3 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 48.5 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 11.8 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV