RSS

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

06 Jan

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

Richard Charnin
Jan.8, 2016
Updated: Jan.19, 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

This summary analysis indicates fraud in the 2014 Governor elections, based on registration  and voter turnout statistics in the Voter Turnout Model (VTM). Sensitivity analysis of voter registration and turnout provides further confirmation of the Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) and True Vote Model (TVM). 

Six elections  were analyzed using CVS (based on county precinct voting) and TVM (based on returning 2012 election voters).  Note the near-perfect confirmation in the Democratic vote in all three models.

Recorded Vote

Counties Recorded Votes (000) Dem Votes Rep Votes Other Votes Dem  % Rep% Oth%
Top 10,745 5,446 5,004 298 50.7 46.6 2.8
Other 5,981 2,398 3,366 212 40.1 56.3 3.5
Total 16,727 7,844 8,370 510 46.9 50.0 3.0
KY 974 426 511 35 43.8 52.5 3.7
IL 3,626 1,681 1,823 121 46.4 50.3 3.4
FL 5,889 2,801 2,865 223 47.6 48.6 3.8
WI 2,382 1,112 1,242 27 46.7 52.2 1.1
MD 1,733 818 884 29 47.2 51.0 1.7
MA 2,120 1,004 1,044 71 47.4 49.3 3.4

Three Models

Dem TVM CVS VTM DemReg RepReg
Total 52.3% 52.0% 52.0% 45.4% 31.1%
KY 48.8% 49.5% 49.3% 53.4% 38.8%
IL 54.2% 54.4% 50.3% 47.0% 35.0%
FL 49.7% 51.1% 49.8% 38.8% 35.0%
WI 51.6% 50.2% 50.5% 43.0% 41.0%
MD 56.4% 52.9% 56.2% 54.9% 25.7%
MA 55.6% 56.0% 55.7% 35.3% 10.9%

Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS)

Democratic vote shares declined 5.1%  from the 10% CVS mark to the recorded vote. The Democrats did much better in the TOP counties (58.4%) which comprised 72% of the vote than in the smaller counties (40.4%).  The  7.7% decline in the Top counties is a red flag indicating fraud, unlike the 0.3% decline in the other small counties.

 Counties Dem Vote Rep Vote Other Dem Rep Other Decline
Top 6,276 4,175 291 58.4% 38.9% 2.7% -7.7%
Other 2,415 3,354 212 40.4% 56.1% 3.5% -0.3%
Total 8,692 7,530 503 52.0% 45% 3.0% -5.1%
KY 482 452 40 49.5% 46.4% 4.2% -5.3%
IL 1,969 1,544 113 54.4% 42.5% 3.1% -7.9%
FL 3,008 2,659 222 51.1% 45.1% 3.8% -3.5%
WI 1,194 1,159 25 50.2% 48.7% 1.1% -3.5%
MD 903 777 29 52.9% 45.4% 1.7% -5.7%
MA 1,187 861 71 56.0% 40.6% 3.4% -8.6%

Registered Voter Turnout (VTM) and Exit Poll Party-ID

Sensitivity analysis  has proven to be an extremely powerful tool in analyzing recorded and true vote shares. It is included in the TVM to calculate the effect on total vote shares using a plausible prior election returning voter mix. In the VTM analysis, we consider the mix  (or “split”) of registered voters as the true basis for the turnout rates and range of vote share assumptions  used to derive estimated  vote shares. Independents are an important factor as they comprise 25% of the national electorate.

The analysis is analogous to the Exit Poll Party-ID ,  but the party registration mix varies from Party-ID. It has been proven (and pollsters admit), that ALL exit polls are forced to conform to the recorded vote by adjusting the category weighting mix and/or the corresponding vote shares.  The 2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID  was adjusted from the voter registration mix  (40.5D- 35.3R- 24.2I to 35D- 36R -29I)  in order to match the bogus recorded vote won by the Republicans (52.5-46.2%).

Democratic  and Republican candidates usually win at least 90% of party voters and 7-10% of the other party. This analysis shows that the Republican share of Democratic voters required to match the recorded vote was significantly higher than 10%.

The simplest measure of  political party strength is in the voter registration statistics from the  Secretary of State or the Boards of Elections. In 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allowed registered voters to indicate  party preference when registering to vote.

Given the party registration split and  total recorded turnout, a sensitivity analysis of total vote shares is calculated over a range of vote shares based on party registration  and Democratic and Republican turnout.

Although there is no evidence to support  the media’s claim that  registered Republicans turnout at a higher rate than Democrats,  it is assumed in the VTM to counter the myth that Democrats lose because of low turnout.  On the contrary, in the 2004 and 2008 elections, heavy turnout was due to  millions of new and highly motivated Democrats but  votes were flipped or not counted, giving the illusion of lower Democratic turnout.

2014 National Voter Registration Split

Registration Split Democrat Republican Independent
Democrat 40.5% 92% 7% 1%
Republican 35.3% 5% 94% 1%
Independent 24.2% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 49.2% 49.1% 1.7%

2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID Split

Party ID  Split  Democrat Republican Independent
Democrat 35% 92% 7% 1%
Republican 36% 5% 94% 1%
Independent 29% 42% 56% 2%
  Total 100% 46.2% 52.5% 1.3%

Click the state links for the True Vote Model and Sensitivity Analysis tables. 

Florida

Scott (R) won the recorded vote by  48.2-47.1%.   Crist won the VTM by 49.8-46.0%,  confirming the CVS (51.1-45.1%) and TVM (49.7-45.6%).  Registered 68.4% voter turnout was assumed 66% Democratic, 71% Republican and 68.4% Independent.

The only difference between the FL Gov Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote) and the VTM is the Party-ID (31D-35R-34I) and Voter Registration 38.8D-35R-26.2I).

VTM (votes in thousands)

 FL Split Reg Turnout Votes Crist Scott Other
Dem 38.8% 3,372 66.0% 2,226 91% 6% 3%
Rep 35.0% 3,042 71.0% 2,159 10% 88% 2%
Ind 26.2% 2,277 68.4% 1,557 46% 45% 9%
Total 100.0% 8,691 68.4% 5941 49.8% 46.0% 4.2%

Sensitivity Analysis

Democrat Turnout    
% Dem 60.4% 62.4% 64.4% 66.4% 68.4%
 Crist Share
93.0% 47.5% 48.6% 49.7% 50.7% 51.8%
91.0% 46.9% 47.9% 48.9% 50.0% 51.0%
89.0% 46.2% 47.2% 48.2% 49.2% 50.2%
Margin (000)
93.0% -12 113 239 364 490
91.0% -94 29 152 275 397
89.0% -175 -55 65 185 305

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.1% …. 48.2% …. 4.7%

Illinois

 IL Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Quinn Rauner  Grimm
Dem 47.0% 2,687 60.0% 1,612 91% 7% 2%
Rep 35.0% 2,001 68.0% 1,361 7% 91% 2%
Ind 18.0% 1,029 63.4% 653 40% 53% 7%
Total 100% 5.717 63.4% 3626 50.3% 46.8% 2.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4% …. 50.3% …. 3.4%

Wisconsin

 WI Split Reg Turnout Votes Burke Walker Other
Dem 43.0% 1,292 77.0% 995 95% 4% 1%
Rep 41.0% 1,232 81.6% 1,006 7% 92% 1%
Ind 16.0% 481 79.3% 381 49% 49% 2%
Total 100.0% 3,005 79.3% 2382 50.5% 48.4% 1.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.7% …. 52.2% …. 1.1%

Kentucky

 KY Split Voters Turnout Votes Conway Bevin Curtis
Dem 53.4% 1,227 40.0% 491 88% 9% 3%
Rep 38.8% 892 45.7% 407 4% 92% 4%
Ind 7.8% 179 42.4% 76 42% 51% 7%
 Total  100.0% 2,298 42.4% 974 49.3% 47.0% 3.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.8% …. 52.5% …. 3.7%

Massachusetts

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Coakley Baker Other
Dem 35.3% 1,147 60.0% 688 91% 5% 4%
Rep 10.9% 354 86.0% 304 9% 87% 4%
Ind 53.8% 1,749 66.1% 1,156 47% 47% 6%
Total 100% 3,250 66.1% 2149 55.7% 39.4% 4.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.6% …. 48.5% …. 4.9%

Maryland

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Brown Hogan Other
Dem 54.9% 1,644 54.0% 888 89% 9% 2%
Rep 25.7% 770 66.1% 509 5% 94% 1%
Other 19.4% 581 57.9% 336 47% 51% 2%
Total 100% 2.995 57.9% 1,733 56.2% 42.1% 1.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.2% …. 51.0% …. 1.8%

Ohio

Regist. Split Regist. voters Turnout Votes (000) Fitz -gerald Kasich Other
Dem 41.0% 2,319 50.0% 1,160 72% 24% 4%
Rep 42.0% 2,376 56.3% 1,339 4% 95% 1%
Ind 17.0% 962 53.2% 512 36% 57% 7%
Total 100% 5,657 53.2% 3010 35.6% 61.0 3.4%

Recorded …………………………………………. 32.9% …. 63.9% …. 3.3%

Kansas

Regist.  Split Regist.  voters Turnout Votes (000) Davis Brown-back Other
Dem 24.3% 329 62.7% 206 94% 5% 1%
Rep 44.1% 597 62.7% 324 19% 79% 2%
Ind 31.6% 428 62.7% 268 56% 35% 9%
Total 100% 1,353 62.7% 849 48.9% 47.1% 4.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Michigan

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Scha- uer Snyder Other
Dem 44.0% 2,270 59.0% 1,339 90% 8% 2%
Rep 37.0% 1,909 63.0% 1,203 7% 91% 2%
Ind 19.0% 980 60.8% 596 49% 48% 3%
Total 100% 5,159 60.8% 3,138 50.4 47.4% 2.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Georgia

Reg Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Carter Deal Other
Dem 39.0% 1,679 58.0% 974 94% 4% 2%
Rep 43.0% 1,852 59.8% 1,108 5% 93% 2%
Ind 18.0% 775 59.0% 457 47% 47% 6%
Total 100% 4,306 59.0% 2539 46.7% 51.0% 2.3%

Recorded …………………………………………. 44.8 ….52.8…. 2.4%

Colorado

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes  Hicken-looper Beau-prez Oth
Dem 30.9% 820 73.0% 599 92% 6% 2%
Rep 32.9% 873 77.1% 673 12% 86% 2%
Ind 36.2% 961 75.1% 721 49% 42% 9%
Total 100% 2,654 100% 1993 49.4% 46.0% 4.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 49.1 …. 46.2…. 4.7%

Maine

Regist.  Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Michaud Lepage Other
Dem 31.9% 255 76.2% 194 91% 5% 4%
Rep 27.1% 217 76.2% 165 9% 87% 4%
Ind 41.0% 328 76.2% 250 45% 40% 15%
 Totl  100% 799 76.2% 609 49.9% 41.6% 8.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.3 …. 48.3…. 8.4%

Vermont

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Shumlin Milne Other
Dem 47.0% 152 59.9% 91 92% 4% 4%
Rep 31.0% 100 59.9% 60 10% 84% 6%
Ind 22.0% 71 59.9% 43 45% 35% 20%
 Totl  100% 324 59.9% 194 56.2% 35.6% 8.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4 …. 45.3…. 8.3%

Pennsylvania

Regist.  Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Wolf Corbett
Dem 49.5% 3,030 52.0% 1,576 92.0% 8.0%
Rep 36.7% 2,246 63.0% 1,416 16.0% 84.0%
Ind 13.8% 845 56.7% 479 55.0% 45.0%
Total 100% 6,121 56.7% 3470 55.9% 44.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 54.9 …. 45.1%

California

Regist.  Split Reg Voters Turnout Votes Brown Kashkari
Dem 43.3% 6,111 45.0% 2,750 95.4% 4.6%
Rep 28.1% 3,966 47.6% 1,888 12.0% 88.0%
Ind 28.6% 4,036 46.0% 1,858 60.0% 40.0%
Total 100% 14,113 46.0% 6496 61.0% 39.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 60.5 …. 39.5%

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 6, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

2 responses to “2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

  1. Bev

    January 8, 2016 at 6:09 am

    Your Mi-Michigan True Vote Model shows Democratic Candidate for Governor Schauer won over the anti-science, 6,000 year old earth nut Republican Synder who should never have taken office. To the people of Michigan, Snyder should go to jail for poisoning drinking water and election fraud:

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/07/dear-gov-snyder-you-have-go-jail

    Dear Gov. Snyder: You Have to Go to Jail

    “I’m asking everyone who agrees with me to sign on to this petition and call for your arrest.”
    by Michael Moore

    Dear Governor Snyder:

    Thanks to you, sir, and the premeditated actions of your administrators, you have effectively poisoned, not just some, but apparently ALL of the children in my hometown of Flint, Michigan.

    And for that, you have to go to jail.

    To poison all the children in an historic American city is no small feat. Even international terrorist organizations haven’t figured out yet how to do something on a magnitude like this.

    But you did. Your staff and others knew that the water in the Flint River was poison — but you decided that taking over the city and “cutting costs” to “balance the budget” was more important than the people’s health (not to mention their democratic rights to elect their own leaders.) So you cut off the clean, fresh glacial lake water of Lake Huron that the citizens of Flint (including myself) had been drinking for decades and, instead, made them drink water from the industrial cesspool we call the Flint River — a body of “water” where toxins from a dozen General Motors and DuPont factories have been dumped for over a hundred years. And then you decided to put a chemical in this water to “clean” it — which only ended up stripping the lead off of Flint’s aging water pipes, placing that lead in the water and sending it straight into people’s taps. Your callous — and reckless (btw, “reckless” doesn’t get you a pass; a reckless driver who kills a child, still goes to jail) — decision to do this has now, as revealed by the city’s top medical facility, caused “irreversible brain damage” in Flint’s children, not to mention other bodily damage to all of Flint’s adults. Here’s how bad it is: Even GM won’t let the auto parts they use in building cars touch the Flint water because that water “corrodes” them. This is a company that won’t even fix an ignition switch after they’ve discovered it’s already killed dozens of people. THAT’s how bad the situation is. Even GM thinks you’re the devil.

    Maybe you don’t understand the science behind this. Lead, in water — now, bear with me, this involves a science lesson and you belong to the anti-science party, the one that believes there’s not a climate problem and that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. Lead is toxic to the human body. There’s no way to fully eliminate it once it’s in your system, and children are the most damaged by it.

    By taking away the city’s clean drinking water in order to “cut costs,” and then switching the city’s water supply to Flint River water, you have allowed massively unsafe levels of pollutants and lead into the water that travels in to everyone’s home. Every Flint resident is trapped by this environmental nightmare which you, Governor, have created.

    Like any real criminal, when you were confronted with the truth (by the EPA and other leading water experts across America), you denied what you did. Even worse, you decided to mock your accusers and their findings. As I said, I know you don’t like to believe in a lot of science (after all, you used to run Gateway Computers, and that, really, is all anyone needs to know about you), but this time the science has caught up with you — and this time, I hope, it’s going to convict you.

    The facts are all there, Mr. Snyder. Every agency involved in this scheme reported directly to you. The children of Flint didn’t have a choice as to whether or not they were going to get to drink clean water. But soon it will be your turn to not have that choice about which water you’ll be drinking. Because by this time next year, if there is an ounce of justice left in this land, the water you’ll be drinking will be served to you from a tap inside Jackson Prison.

    I am calling upon my fellow Michiganders — and seekers of justice everywhere — to petition U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asking her to arrest you for corruption and assault (i.e., the physical assault you committed against the children of Flint when you knowingly poisoned them).

    Yesterday, the federal prosecutor in Flint, after many of us had called for months for this action, finally opened up an investigation into the matter. Now we need your arrest, prosecution and conviction.

    And who will be cheering on that day when you are fitted with a bright orange jumpsuit? The poor and minority communities of Michigan who’ve endured your dictatorial firing of their mayors and school boards so you could place your business friends in charge of their mostly-black cities. They know you never would have done this to a wealthy white suburb.

    I welcome all to look at the appalling facts of this case, which have been reported brilliantly here, here, and especially here by the great Rachel Maddow. Thank you, Rachel, for caring so deeply when the rest of the national television media didn’t.

    I’m asking everyone who agrees with me to sign on to this petition and call for your arrest, Governor Snyder. You are not allowed to run amok in my hometown like you have done. The children whom you have poisoned have to endure a life of pain and lower IQs from your actions. You have destroyed a generation of children — and for that, you must pay.

    It is time for you to go to prison. Out of mercy, I’ll ask that you have in your cell your own personal Gateway computer.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Moore

    Flint native

    Michigan resident and voter

    For everyone wanting to sign on to this petition calling for the IMMEDIATE resignation of Governor Snyder AND for the FBI to arrest him, please sign the petition here http://michaelmoore.com/ArrestGovSnyder .

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

     

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: