RSS

2016 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

02 Jul

2016 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

Richard Charnin
July 2, 2015
Updated: Nov.8, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the book: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

It’s way too early to make any predictions 16 months in advance. And there is no reason to expect that the 2016 election will be fraud-free since the Democratic True Vote is always greater than the recorded vote. View sensitivity analysis scenarios to see the effects of 2016 vote shares and 2012 returning voter turnout assumptions.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=11

On Election Day 2012, 117.4 million votes were recorded. Obama led by 50.34-48.07%. The National Exit Poll was published the day after the election. It was adjusted to match Obama’s Election Day share: 50.30-47.76%. However, 11.7 million Late votes were recorded after Election Day. Obama won the late vote by 60.2-39.8%.

The surge in Obama’s late votes increased his final margin to 51.03-47.19%. But he actually had a 55% True Vote share. The systematic red-shift struck again. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29

The 2016 Election model will contain two components:
1- Recorded vote: A Monte Carlo simulation using state win probabilities based on the final pre-election polls.
2- True Vote Model: based on alternative assumptions of returning voter turnout and projected vote shares.

There are two calculation methods:
Method 1: returning 2012 voters based on the recorded vote- Obama had 51%.
This calculation assumes the election will be fraudulent since the prior recorded vote was fraudulent. Therefore, returning voter estimates are implausible. In any case, the model generates vote share scenarios based on various assumptions of Obama and Romney voter turnout.

Method 2: returning voters are based on the 2012 True Vote – Obama had 55%.
This calculation assumes that the election will be essentially fraud-free since the estimated number of returning voters is plausible.

Base case assumptions assume:
1) 2012 recorded or True Vote shares
2) 1.25% annual voter mortality (total 5%)
3) 95% turnout of living Obama and Romney voters.

Track record:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 2, 2015 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

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: