RSS

South Dakota 2014 Cumulative Vote Share Analysis

02 Jan

South Dakota 2014 Cumulative Vote Share Analysis

Richard Charnin
Jan.2, 2015
Updated: Feb. 8,2015

This article by Lori Stacey is one of the best I have read in my 14 years of election fraud analysis. http://www.examiner.com/article/questions-loom-over-south-dakota-2014-mid-term-elections

Lori ran for Secretary of State. I had the pleasure of working with her in developing the cumulative vote share analysis. Just like in the Wisconsin Governor race, the graphics reveal election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Lori must now be considered as one of the best election activists in the unending battle for election transparency.

From the article:
Since Minnehaha County is the most heavily populated in the state and was already known to have had significant problems which were presented in the beginning of this article, it was probably one of the best counties to use to analyze some of the statewide races. The following races were analyzed for Minnehaha County: US Senate, Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General.

Until I am able to rectify a technical issue that is not allowing me to be able to copy and post photos of the graphs in a slide show attached to this story, readers will have to access the graphs by going to the actual spreadsheets and following along. First click on the “actual spreadsheets” hyperlink. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/edit#gid=1519263458

At the bottom of the page will be sheet tabs, click on “CumShareSen” to see the graphs for the US Senate race. On the left-hand side are the county names, go down to Minnehaha and then slide bar at bottom of page until you see the graph. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/edit#gid=2116027370

On Howie’s line, after very slight fluctuation, you see his vote share quickly level off at 3% all the way through the 38,662 mark of added votes, then suddenly goes down 1% of the total vote count to end with a 2% finish. Pressler starts out at 23% and then levels off at 20% through the 11,882 mark and then takes a 2% likely improbable dive to end with a total share for the county of 18%. Now we look at the more obvious problem, the near exact mirror image between Weiland and Rounds. The true vote could have been a dead heat or may possibly have had a different winner for this county. After a high of 39%, then votes appear flipped to Rounds in a few smaller precincts and Weiland recovers back to 37% at 14555 mark. Past the point it should have leveled off, Weiland takes a long significant dive of 5% of the total to end at only 32%. Of the 4 candidates, Rounds is the only one that increases and significantly through the largest precincts in the largest county in the state to gain an improbable additional 7% which spreads wide open an ending final margin over Weiland of 15%. An estimate of the true vote based on this information between Rounds and Weiland should have at least been a dead heat but because of the additional impossible late increase of 2 percent in the last and largest precincts most likely accounting for Pressler and Howie late dives could mean that the true vote between Rounds/Weiland may have been a Weiland win for the county instead of Rounds. We also don’t know if Howie was locked in and missing votes and then dropped that additional 1%. Never the less, for this county to end in a highly improbable 15% margin of victory in the most heavily populated county in the state is a glaring finding of suspected, significant election fraud.

Brown County’s graphs show even more cause for concern as to the likely rightful, county winners. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/pubchart?oid=1073354427&format=interactive
Many times I heard people joke about Rick Weiland’s campaign slogan of, “Take It Back!” and they wondered what was meant by that. Well, maybe now Weiland needs to try to do just that.

If we go to the CumShareSOS sheet, then go to Minnehaha County and over to the graph, you will find a very similar, suspicious pattern with the margin between Krebs and Schultz beginning at less than 3%, ended-up spreading out to an unbelievable victory margin of 25.7%. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/pubchart?oid=1301860278&format=interactive
I had a long, steady dive of 5.5% to finish with only 3.1% which was a lower share than most other counties in the state and this was my home county where I had the most exposure. Add to this, the significant amount of supposed under votes for this race and mysteriously record low voter turn out numbers and I believe this race’s final numbers statewide are also literally Unbelievable. Minnehaha County, judging by this graph should have been quite close at least between the Democrat and Republican candidates and when you know the demographics of this county, it makes these results even more suspect.

But Brown County in the SOS race is even more troublesome than Minnehaha County. Scroll up to Brown County graph and you will see that this shows a very probable COMPLETE flip of the votes. In my opinion, based on the graph of Brown County, Angelia Schultz should have been the rightful winner of her own home county! If you want to take some time in looking at the other county graphs for this race, I would suggest Grant, Coddington, Lincoln and Hughes.

Readers are welcome to browse through all the rest of the CumShare tabs of graphs for the 4 races analyzed and draw your own conclusions based on the information presented in this article. Notice that in almost every county that was analyzed, only the Republican candidates in the races had soaring increases in the largest precincts within the counties and ALL other candidates substantially decreased in their percentage of vote in the largest precincts of those counties. IMPORTANT, these graphs illustrate the vote share changes in relation to the totals at that point for the countywide vote. In order to see the much more dramatic individual spikes and falls in the PRECINCT percentages for the candidates, you may access those numbers here. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/edit#gid=1519263458

In conclusion, taking into account all of the information that has been presented regarding various types of voter suppression, under votes, possible dropped/uncounted votes by a computerized, secretive vote count for which there is NO AUDIT of any percentage of votes via hand-counting, the outrageous recreation of ballots, voters that did not receive their absentee ballots, ballots kept in someone’s home, press reporting results before polls had closed, voters that were not notified of changes in polling locations, statewide would-be candidates wrongfully denied ballot access, the mathematical analysis, etc,etc,etc. CONSIDERING ALL OF THE ABOVE, not even a hand recount could capture the true voice of South Dakota voters!

The only rightful remedy is to hold a new statewide election and hand-count the ballots in public view at the local precincts before the ballots ever leave the buildings which is exactly the only fully transparent and accurate way fair elections were to be conducted. Make sure everyone is properly notified of their correct polling location and that everyone requesting an absentee ballot receives one in a reasonable amount of time.

The current chances of actually having a new statewide election are between zero and none, UNLESS a large percentage of voters in the state demand it! The choice is ultimately up to the will of the people. If not, then it is long-overdue for Americans to ask themselves what the REAL point of our elections is supposed to be………

A PhD study confirms the Cumulative Vote Share precinct size analysis:
Precinct Size Matters:­The Large Precinct Bias in US Presidential Elections- G.F.Webb (Vanderbilt University, Nashville,TN)
Examination of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.The large precinct bias is analyzed with respect to voter heterogeneity and voter inconvenience as precinct size increases.The analysis shows that voter inconvenience is a significant factor in election outcomes in certain states, and may significantly disadvantage Democratic candidates.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

This spreadsheet contains comprehensive CVS analysis of the SD 2014 Governor race:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/edit#gid=1325075119

South Dakota 2014 elections: Minnehaha County

Secretary of State

Governor

Attorney General

Senate

Brown County

Governor

Attorney General

Senate

Secretary of State

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/pubchart?oid=181838893&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mmY1RBxmJHCF12TUf5vZVMTc3uqHZD4pm7Rb3Vn1kys/pubchart?oid=1319094795&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/pubchart?oid=1073354427&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11pw_YbGe9iidkziW1R8sks5HpseapEGpABD0l2Twebw/pubchart?oid=1123655814&format=interactive

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 2, 2015 in 2014 Elections

 

One response to “South Dakota 2014 Cumulative Vote Share Analysis

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: