MA 2014 Governor Election: Cumulative Vote Share Anomalies
A Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis of the 2014 Massachusetts Governor election showed greater discrepancies than the races in WI, FL, MD and IL. CVS analysis indicated that election fraud was likely in each election. All showed the same counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares. Democrats are strong in large, vote-rich urban areas and Republicans dominate in small, rural areas.
In MA, a strong Democratic state, Baker(R) defeated Coakley(D) by 49.3-47.4%, a 40,000 vote margin out of two million cast.
Note that cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the basis for calculating the change to the final vote. At 25% the Democrats typically lead by a solid margin, especially in heavily populated counties. But it’s all downhill from there.
At the 25% CVS mark, Coakley led by 56.0-40.6%, a 326,000 vote margin. She led in 12 of the 14 townships. But 183,000 votes shifted to Baker, who ended up winning 7 townships. In Middlesex (518,000 votes) Coakley’s share dropped 40,000 votes (7.8%). In Hamden (129,000 votes) her share declined a whopping 17.5% (23,000 votes).
Only three townships (Barnstable, Berkshire and Franklin) did not show an increasing vote share trend for Baker. Coakley dropped 8.2% in the 5 largest townships, but just 2.3% in the five smallest – further confirmation that Democratic votes are stolen in the largest counties. Smaller counties are ignored because a) they have relatively few Democrats and/or b) secure vote counting/auditing systems.
Recall that Coakley also lost a disputed election in 2010. Jonathan Simon wrote: “In the 70 jurisdictions where ballots were hand-counted, Coakley won. In fact, statewide, there was an 8% disparity between hand count to computer count.”
The beauty of CVS analysis is that it is easy to understand. Given the basic premise that Democrats usually do much better than Republicans in heavily populated counties, then we would not expect Republicans to gain share as precinct votes are sorted and summed from the smallest to the largest precincts. This is a red flag and indicates that the election was likely fraudulent.
This spreadsheet contains precinct level votes for the 14 MA townships sorted by precinct size, corresponding graphs and summary table:
Election analysts and activists have presented overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence of systematic election fraud:
a) massive unadjusted exit poll discrepancies (red-shift to the GOP),
b) impossible number of returning voters from the previous election,
c) unadjusted exit poll data changed and forced to match the recorded vote,
d) True Vote Model confirms unadjusted exit polls,
e) election officials refusal to prove vote counts are accurate,
f) proprietary voting machines steal votes using malicious, secret code,
g) refusal of the mainstream media (who fund the pollsters) to inform or investigate,
h) failure of the Democratic party to investigate proves its complicity.
Election Fraud is the THIRD RAIL of American politics.
Election officials won’t reveal the ballots or provide voting machine code. Exit pollsters make impossible adjustments to the actual data in order to conform to the bogus recorded vote. Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later when it’s too late to do anything about it.
In 2012 the National Election Pool of six media giants did not conduct presidential exit polls 19 states. Their stated reason (to save money) was an extreme insult to the collective intelligence of serious analysts. The true reason is that the NEP does not want election analysts to have access to the full set of exit poll data – otherwise they would be able to calculate the unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate vote share and compare it to the unadjusted National Exit Poll. The data would show that the Democratic True Vote is 4-5% higher (“the red-shift”) than the recorded vote.
Given all this, the fact that in Kansas no one is allowed to view the voting machine records should not come as a surprise.
View the CVS county graphs: