KY 2015 Governor: Cumulative Vote shares indicate Likely Fraud

Richard Charnin

Nov.5, 2015

Latest Update: Jan.2, 2016

**Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004**

In the KY 2015 Governor election, Matt BEVIN (R) defeated Jack CONWAY (D) 52.5-43.8%, an 84,000 vote margin. Conway was leading in virtually all pre-election polls by 3 to 5 points yet he had fewer votes than other Democrats on the ticket.

**In Kentucky, registered Democrats led Republicans by 53.4-38.8%.**

Click to view the KY Cumulative Vote Shares

Click to view the KY True Vote Model.

The objective of CVS analysis is to view the effects of county/precinct size on the cumulative vote share trend. Since the largest counties are usually heavily Democratic, the consistent pattern of Republican Governor candidates gaining share from small to large precincts is counter-intuitive. On the other hand, there is virtually no change in vote shares in smaller, heavily GOP counties. This defies political reality and the *Law of Large Numbers.*

The analysis indicates that the pre-election polls were likely correct and that Conway probably won the election. CVS analysis of the 2014 FL, IL, WI, MA and MD Governor elections exhibited the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares in larger counties. But the KY analysis indicates that the anomaly occurred in many smaller counties.

Precinct votes for 120 Kentucky counties were downloaded to two spreadsheets: KY2015Gov1 and KY2015Gov2

The** Summary sheet **displays recorded final vote shares and cumulative shares for 120 counties at the 10% and 25% CVS mark.

For example, in a county with 20,000 votes, the 25% CVS mark represents the first 5000 cumulative votes, starting from the smallest precinct.

**Assuming that the True Vote was at the**

** – 10% CVS mark, Conway won by 49.5-46.2%.**

** – 25% CVS mark, Bevin won by 48.3-47.7%.**

**As in previous CVS analysis, it appears that votes were stolen in Democratic strongholds. In the 25 counties in which he was leading at the 25% mark, Conway’s 11.6% margin declined to 1.5%. In the other 95 counties, Conway’s -23.3% deficit declined just 1.9% to -25.2%.**

Conway’s cumulative vote share declined from the 25% mark to the final in 53 of the TOP 60 counties, a 1 in 3 million probability! In a random process, we would expect a nearly even split. The probability is overwhelming evidence that there is an external fraud factor in the vote tabulation.

Another statistic of interest: a strong 0.33* Correlation* between county vote size and Conway’s vote share margin.

The 120 counties were sorted from largest to smallest to calculate the change in cumulative vote shares from the 25% mark. Conway’s share fell 5.6% from 53.9 to 48.3 in the TOP 15 counties; declined by 2.0% from 40.8 to 38.8 in the other 105 counties.This is a clear indication that votes were flipped in the largest counties.

The CVS method consists of the following steps:

1) Download the county precinct data

2) sort by precinct total vote

3) calculate a rolling sum of votes for each candidate

4) calculate corresponding cumulative vote shares

5) create the cumulative vote share line graph

6) check for divergence in shares from small to large precincts

7) calculate shares and changes from the 25% mark to the final

For example, view the Bath County spreadsheet. Conway’s vote share increased from 47.1% at the 25% mark to 49.9% at the final.

**Down ballot Anomalies**

Bev Harris of ** BlackBoxVoting.org** noted that the higher Democratic vote totals in the down ballot races were a “significant anomaly”.

Bevin (R) won the total recorded vote by 52.5-43.8%.

Lundergan (D) won the Secretary of State by 51.16-48.84%.

Beshear (D) won Attorney General by 50.12-49.88%

Bevin won the Top 25 counties by 49.3-47.0%.

Dem SOS candidate Lundergan won the Top 25 by 53.3-46.7%.

Confirming CVS at 10%, Conway wins by 50.1-46.2% if we add the 6.3% difference in Lundergan’s Top 25 share to Conway’s total 43.8% share.

This sheet shows two-party vote shares for Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State in the largest 25 counties.

The** True Vote Model** displays various scenarios of returning Obama and Romney voters along with corresponding vote shares. The model uses two returning voter estimates based on Obama’s 2012 recorded KY vote and his True Vote. The model matched the 2015 recorded vote assuming Obama’s recorded KY 2012 vote. It matches the CVS vote shares at the 10% mark assuming Obama’s True Vote. The Sensitivity analysis tables display Conway’s total vote shares and margins over a range of returning voter turnout and vote share scenarios of returning and new voters.

The cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the baseline for estimating the True Vote. But we may want to view changes in vote share in the 0-25% range if we assume that votes were also flipped in the smallest precincts.

Let V25 = the cumulative vote share at the 25% mark and VF = the final recorded share. The adjusted vote share (TV) is given by the formula:

TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF

For example in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. The adjusted True Vote estimate is:

**TV = 68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 9.6% + 58.8%**

The 10% mark is also used as an estimate of the True Vote.

**TOP 80 counties (895,000 votes – 92% of the total)**

Conway led by 50.6-45.2% at the 10% mark.

Conway led by 48.6-47.3% at the 25% mark.

Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 80 by 51.9-44.4%.

**TOP 60 counties (829,000 votes – 85% of the total)**

Conway led by 51.4-44.3% at the 10% mark.

Conway led by 49.5-46.4% at the 25% mark.

Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 60 by 51.2-45.1%.

**TOP 40 counties (735,000 votes – 75% of the total)**

Conway led by 50.9-44.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 50.2-46.1%, a 10.1% reduction in Conway’s margin. Assuming Conway had 113,000 (47%) of the remaining 239,000 votes in the other 80 counties. he would win by 50-46%.

**TOP 25 counties (625,000 votes – 64% of the total)**

Conway led by 51.9-43.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 49.3-47.0%, a 10.3% reduction in Conway’s margin.

**TOP 15 counties (518,000 votes – 53% of the total) **

Conway led by 53.9-41.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Conway led the Top 15 by 48.3-47.9%, a 11.7% reduction in Conway’s margin.

Given Conway’s 53.9% vote share in the Top 15 counties at the 25% mark, Bevin needed 305,000 (67%) of 455,000 votes in the other 105 counties to match his recorded vote margin (52.5-43.8%). He had 263,000 votes in the 105 counties. Given the anomalies in the TOP 15 counties, it is safe to assume that he had less than 263,000 votes.

**Sensitivity Analysis (15 scenarios)**

Conway had 40% of the recorded vote in the Bottom 60 counties, but we do not have the CVS for the group. Since we have CVS estimates for the TOP 60, we calculate estimates of Conway’s total vote using a range of vote share estimates for the Bottom 60.

1) formula, 2) 10% CVS, 3) 25% CVS. He won 12 of the 15 scenarios.

Conway ties Bevin with 40% (the break-even share) in the smallest 60 counties.

Assuming Conway had…

41% of the Bottom 60 and

– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 49.9-46.1% (36,800 votes).

– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.2-47.8% (4,700 votes).

43% of the Bottom 60 and

– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 50.2-45.8% (42,600 votes).

– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.5-47.5% (10,500 votes).

Compare the recorded vote shares in the following county subgroups to the cumulative shares at the 25% mark. Conway leads Bevin in all groups from the Top 15 (53% of the total vote) to the Top 80 (92% of the total).

10% CVS | 25% CVS | Final | ||||

KY Counties | Conway | Bevin | Conway | Bevin | Conway | Bevin |

Top 15 | 56.4% | 38.9% | 53.9% | 41.9% | 48.3% | 47.9% |

Top 25 | 54.1% | 41.3% | 51.9% | 43.9% | 47.0% | 49.3% |

Top 40 | 52.9% | 42.7% | 50.9% | 44.9% | 46.1% | 50.2% |

Top 60 | 51.4% | 44.3% | 49.5% | 46.4% | 45.1% | 51.2% |

Top 80 | 39.2% | 45.2% | 48.7% | 47.3% | 44.4% | 51.9% |

All 120 | 49.5% | 46.4% | 47.7% | 48.3% | 43.8% | 52.5% |

Jefferson County

A Democratic stronghold, Jefferson is the largest county in KY with 192,391 recorded votes. At the 25% mark (48,000) votes, Conway led in Jefferson by 66-30%. He won the county by 58-39%. The 17% change in margin lowered his vote margin from 69,000 to 31,000. But there may have been vote flipping from zero to 48,000. Conway led by 70-27% after the first 11,500 votes.

Fayette County

There were 69,953 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, Conway led by 60-34%. He won the county by 55-40%. The 11% change lowered his margin from 18,000 to 10,000 votes.

Kenton County

There were 31,453 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, they were tied at 47%. Bevin won the county by 57-39%. The 18% change increased Bevins’ margin from 80 to 5700 votes. Conway led by 53-41% after the first 2,200 votes (7% mark).

Notes:

Cumulative Vote Shares were calculated for the following 2014 elections. All exhibited the same counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares.

**2014 KY Senate Election**

McConnell (R) defeated Grimes (D) by 56.2-40.7%, a 222,000 vote margin. In Jefferson County, Grimes had 56.1% and won by 35,000 votes Grimes’ vote share was 67.5% at the 10% CVS mark and 64.9% at 25%. But Grimes had just 53.3% from 25% to the final – an 11.6% decline. Assuming Grimes had a 64.9% True Vote, she would have won Jefferson County by 80,000 votes. Conway had 66.0% at the 25% mark and ended with 58.2%, a 7.8% decline. Grimes had 64.9% and ended with 56.1%, an 8.8% decline.

FL, IL, WI, MA, MD all exhibit the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP vote shares in largest counties/precincts. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/cumulative-vote-share-anomalies-indicators-of-rigged-elections/

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies. http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University, *Precinct
Size
Matters:
The
Large
Precinct
Bias
in
US
Presidential
Elections*, reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries.

*2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns*

http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf

Mathematician Kathy Dopp has written a comprehensive essay on the 2014 elections. She is an expert on election audits.

My interview with Thom Hartmann on the KY election

Compare the 2014 Senate race to the 2015 Governor contest.

John R Brakey

November 5, 2015 at 9:30 am

I got it open though your site. thanks JRB

Bruce in Louisville

November 8, 2015 at 8:38 pm

Sorry — I’m very good with math, and statistics, but I cannot follow your reasoning in this article. I think you are saying that you sorted each county by precinct size, then looked for percentage anomalies as you moved through the precincts. If that’s the case, I’m not sure I understand what that is supposed to show, since they aren’t necessarily reported in size order.

I do want to understand your reasoning, so if you have time, I’d be glad to discuss via email or phone. I’ll also come back here to check for replies.

Thanks!

Richard Charnin

November 9, 2015 at 2:19 am

Bruce,

I suggest you look at the spreadsheet for a given county.

For instance, look at Montgomery County:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=1174073740

The first group of columns are the precinct vote totals as reported.

The second set show the precinct votes sorted from smallest to largest precincts.

The third set shows the cumulative votes.

The fourth set shows the cumulative shares.

The final column is the percentage of the total vote for the cumulative precincts – from the lowest to the largest (at 100%).

Scan the column for the precinct closest to 25% of the total.

The corresponding vote shares at the 25% mark are a proxy for the True vote.

The lines should not diverge from that point due to the Law of Large Numbers; they should reach a steady state.

Montgomery County

Conway Bevin Curtis

0.497 0.463 0.040 at 23% (Proxy for the True vote)

0.414 0.546 0.040 at the final 100% (recorded vote)

The change in Conway’s share from the 25% mark to the final is -.083

This is the main sheet which summarizes the vote shares for the TOP 40 and other counties.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=0

I do not “look for” anomalies. I use cumulative vote shares closest to the 25% mark, regardless of the discrepancy from the final vote.

In the post, I provide three links to three mathematicians like myself who have seen the same anomalies in the move to the GOP from small to larger precincts.

Read the articles along with the KY data and charts.

There is nothing to discuss. The numbers speak for themselves.

The divergences are not random occurrences. The votes move in one direction only- in favor of the GOP.

In large counties the cumulative vote shares diverge to favor the Republican; if anything they should be flat or slightly favor the Democrat.

I have analyzed Cumulative Vote Shares for the following 2014 Governor elections:

FL, IL, WI, MA, MD. They all exhibit the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP vote shares in larger precincts.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/cumulative-vote-share-anomalies-indicators-of-rigged-elections/

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies.

http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

A statistical study by G.F. Webb of Vanderbilt University, “Precinct Size Matters: The Large Precinct Bias in US Presidential Elections”,

reveals the persistent correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed similar anomalies in the 2012 primaries.

2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf

I hope this answers your questions.

Note: The spreadsheet also includes a True Vote model analysis for the 2015 KY race. It is based on the 2012 presidential election in KY.

I have used this model quite successfully in analyzing presidential election fraud.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=2073829701

Thanks for your interest

Richard Charnin

Bruce in Louisville

November 9, 2015 at 7:39 am

I understand everything you’ve said here except for the concept of using the 25th percentile precinct as a proxy for what should be the final result. What makes that particular percentile the bellwether?

Richard Charnin

November 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm

Bruce, The choice of 25% is that it is the most appropriate point of reference. At 25% we can assume that the vote shares have settled to a steady state. We need a certain number of votes to as a starting point. If it were 10%, there would be questions raised as to the sample-size. If it was 50%, we would be ignoring half of the votes and starting from a higher base which means a lower deviation.

I included this equation in the post which assumes the fraud starts at the smallest precinct (at 0%):

Calculating the True Vote

The cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the baseline and the estimated True Vote. We can adjust the True Vote by adding the change in cumulative vote shares from the lowest shares from the 0-25% mark. The assumption is that votes were flipped in the 0-25% interval, not just 25-100%.

We calculate an estimated adjusted True Vote (TV) by extrapolation by increasing the change from the 25% mark by 1/3. V25 is the vote share at the 25% mark; VF is the final recorded share.

TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF

For example, in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. Adding 1/3 of 7.2% (2.4%), the cumulative vote share change for 0-100% is 9.6%.

The adjusted True Vote estimate is:

TV=68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 1.33*7.2% + 58.8% =9.6% + 58.8%

Therefore, we can assume that Conway did even better than his shares at the 25% mark. But to be conservative, we will use the cumulative share at 25% of the vote as an estimate of the True Vote..

gregladen

November 9, 2015 at 1:27 pm

Good work.

I reference your analysis here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/09/how-to-do-voting/

Richard Charnin

November 9, 2015 at 4:33 pm

Greg,

Thanks for the comment.

I will post it on Facebook for election activists who I have known for years. They have been extremely frustrated by all of these stolen elections.

I hope that you will find time to read and comment on the election fraud analysis I have been doing since 2004.

I have proved that the consistent 4-5% red shift in the presidential exit polls since 1988 from the recorded vote proves systemic fraud beyond any doubt.

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote by 48-46%.

But they won the unadjusted exit polls by 53-41%.

I developed a True Vote model which confirms the unadjusted exit polls.

My website/blog links to many of my posts since 2004.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ib27G_vDNtQDNLDR8rXiU2LJLCn7Hspd4g5SKtQw1CM/edit#

The probability of these discrepancies is 1 in trillions.

julie justice

November 13, 2015 at 2:35 pm

I just saw you on the Thom Hartmann program. I live in Wisconsin and am very interested in your analysis . Many of us here in Wisconsin believe Walker did not win fairly. My question is, what can we do about this issue? People have stopped voting because they think their votes don’t count. Your analysis pretty much proves that to be so. Is anyone even doing anything about this issue with the voting machines. We are stuck with this A-hole because of this fraud and I’m very frustrated.

John R Brakey

March 5, 2016 at 2:55 pm

Hi Folks, please disregard and use this excel. I added the results that Jim March, J.T Walden and I canvased in MA in 2010 in the excel as tab.

In 2010 in that special election for US senate 71 out of 351 Towns in MA hand counted their paper ballots show a result of *Coakley 51.65%* and Brown 47.21%. The statewide total was Coakley 47.07% and *Brown 51.94%* that looked like a simple flipped election.

The say the Gold Standard is Hand Counted Paper Ballots and in last Tuesday primary 68 small Towns results in MA are Hand Counted Ballots and Bernie *Sanders won big! **58.5%* to 40.70%. This is a huge difference; the state wide result was Sanders 48.69% to Clinton 50.11%.

The hand count towns are about 2.5% of ballots cast in the state primary. Again, Sanders won that big! *58.5%* to 40.70%. this is a huge.

John

Russ Baker

June 3, 2017 at 11:43 am

Folks, just want to make sure you are aware that our site has a reporter dedicated to covering election integrity issues. If you have story ideas for us, please let us know.

Russ Baker

Editor in Chief

WhoWhatWhy