RSS

Maryland 2014 Gov Election Fraud? Cumulative Vote shares, Early, Election Day and Late Vote Anomalies

27 Feb

Maryland 2014 Gov Election Fraud? Cumulative Vote shares, Early, Election Day and Late Vote Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Feb.27, 2015
Updated: Jan. 18, 2016

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis is a recent addition to the toolkit of models for analyzing election fraud. Vote shares in smaller GOP rural precincts heavily favor the Republican, but there is a counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares in larger (presumably urban Democratic) precincts. One would intuitively expect a slight Democratic increase in slope.

In the Maryland 2014 Governor election, Hogan (R) defeated Brown (D) by 65,000 votes (51.7-47.2%). But Brown won 301,000 early and 83,000 late votes (absentee and provisional ballots) by 53.9-44.5%. Hogan led Election Day (1,319,000 votes) by 52.9-45.3%. Election Day voting is on machines; early and late votes use paper ballots.

At the 10% mark, Brown had 62.8 in the ten largest counties (declining to 55.1%) and 29.4% in the other 14 (an increase from 25.2%), confirming that the GOP does not focus on stealing votes in small, rural, heavily GOP counties.

The CVS trend moved to the GOP in each of the following elections
-Florida: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/2014-florida-governor-election-fraud-cumulative-precinct-vote-shares/
-Wisconsin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/
-South Dakota: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/south-dakota-2014-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

Calculating cumulative vote shares (CVS):
1- County precinct votes are sorted in ascending order.
2- The total vote in each precinct is added to the cumulative total.
3- Cumulative vote shares are calculated.
4- Cumulative vote shares (Y) and total votes (X) are displayed graphically.

A PhD study confirms the Cumulative Vote Share 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

CVS confirms the results of other major election fraud indicators:
1) True Vote Model (TVM): Based on plausible returning voters and current election exit poll vote shares. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-exit-poll-smoking-gun-how-did-you-vote-in-the-last-election/

2) State and National Exit Polls: Discrepancies beyond the margin of error between unadjusted exit polls and the recorded vote. All exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It is standard procedure. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:








 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 27, 2015 in 2014 Elections

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2 responses to “Maryland 2014 Gov Election Fraud? Cumulative Vote shares, Early, Election Day and Late Vote Anomalies

  1. Marta Steele

    March 2, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Richard,

    Awesome work. Wish I were a mathematician so I could better get around it and incorporate it more effectively into my work–I’m writing a sequel to my 1st book, covering 2008-2012. Thank you for your kind words about my OEN article!

     
    • Richard Charnin

      March 5, 2015 at 12:19 am

      Marta,

      Thank you. You do not have to be a mathematician to appreciate the significance of the simple fact that our elections are fraudulent. The one-sided discrepancies between the average recorded presidential vote and the unadjusted polls since 1988 are
      1) Unadjusted state and national exit polls: 52 Dem-42% Rep (matched the True Vote Model)
      2) Recorded vote 48 Dem-46% Rep (the adjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote)
      The probability of the 8% discrepancy in margin (4% red shift) is 1 in trillions.
      The probability is calculated in a spreadsheet.

      ALL EXIT POLLS ARE FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE, EVEN IF THE ADJUSTMENTS ARE MATHEMATICALLY AND PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

      I would be happy to assist you if you would like to incorporate the basic proof:

      2008- Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes, but his approximate True Vote margin was 22 million. He had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (18,000 respondents, 1.5% margin of error) but only 53% recorded

      2012- Obama won by 5 million recorded votes, but by approximately 15 million True Votes. The National Election Pool (six media giants which fund the exit polls) decided NOT to exit poll in 19 states, probably because the NEP realized that proof of fraud using unadjusted exit polls was overwhelming. But the True Vote Model proved the 2012 fraud.

       

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: