RSS

Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

23 Jan

Richard Charnin
Jan.23, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Election Fraud and the Media

The media wants you to ignore the Unadjusted exit polls because they claim that they do not represent the actual vote counts.

The media maintains that ADJUSTED exit polls will always converge to the recorded vote count which they want you to believe is always accurate.

The media claims that the unadjusted exit polls have been shown to be grossly inaccurate in all presidential elections since 1988. And the pattern has persisted in congressional and primary elections.

The media claims that the recorded votes are official and  tell us how people really voted and that we should not believe the unadjusted exit polls. Systemic election fraud is a myth. If it were true, the media would have reported it, just like they reported on Acorn.

The National Election Pool claims that the number of states exit polled in 2012 was cut to 31 because of lack of funds and expect us to believe this canard.

The media lauds voting machines, claiming they are faster and more accurate than humans. But the media does not tell you that programmers know how to code 1+1 =3.

Even though we cannot view the proprietary software code, we should accept the Diebold machine counts as being accurate. The fact that the code is proprietary does not mean that there is something to hide.

Media pundits, pollsters and academics ignore election fraud, implicitly assuming that the Fraud Factor is ZERO – an unscientific, faith-based rationale for adjusting exit polls to match the recorded vote.

The media wants you to believe that the exit polls are always wrong:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit poll + Exit Poll error
Final Exit Poll = Recorded Vote

The media does not want you to know that the recorded vote is fraudulent:
Recorded Vote = Unadjusted Exit Poll + Fraud Factor

The corporate media says that in 2008, Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million with a 53% share. But the media never mentioned that the unadjusted state exit polls indicated that Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share. Or that he won the National Exit Poll of 17,836 respondents with 61% and a 30 million vote margin.

In 2004, the corporate media claimed that Bush was the winner by 3.0 million votes and that the exit polls “behaved badly” and misled us into believing that Kerry was the winner by at least 6 million votes (52-47%).

In 2000, the media failed to mention that the unadjusted state exit polls showed that Gore was a 50-46% winner by 5 million votes – not his 540,000 recorded margin. And that Gore had at least 70% of 175,000 uncounted, spoiled ballots in Florida.

These facts have NEVER been disclosed by the media:
1) In 1988-2008, 135 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error, of which 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The joint probability of this occurrence is ONE in TRILLIONS.  That’s ZERO.

2) The unadjusted 1988-2008 State and National exit polls showed the Democrats won by 52-42%. They won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability is ZERO.

The media claims it is all just “voodoo math” by conspiracy theorists. But the media never did the math  since it would reveal that state and national unadjusted exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote results in ZERO probabilities – proving systemic election fraud.

The media would rather maintain the myth of fair elections than actually investigate..

 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

9 responses to “Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

  1. irishgirl999

    January 25, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Richard, I haven’t time at the moment to read everything, but was Snyder of Michigan one of those governors that defied the odds?

     
  2. irishgirl999

    January 25, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    If you want to weigh in, feel free. I didn’t do you justice.

    https://austinisafecker.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/governor-snyder-wasnt-even-elected-to-poison-flint/

    I am pretty bloody useless at numbers, and I am from Ireland which has a totally different system.

     
  3. Will Wilkin

    April 21, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Some of your analysis seems to come down to “exceeded the margin of error.” What determines that margin? I understand the trends all going one way smells fishy, but change that margin number and your analysis would be different, at least to some extent, right? Ultimately, wouldn’t “proving” fraud have to show how the vote count itself was not true, that votes were either not counted or wrongly tallied. Where can we learn exactly how those counts are done and what procedures or guarantees ensure it is accurate? The vote counting seems very opaque, how is it DONE?

     
  4. Will Wilkin

    April 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Returning to the CT Sec of State website I did find this page of audits of memory cards, performed by a UCONN vote technology center. I read only their most recent report of pre-2014 election audit and they say “Overall the audits did not detect any cards whose data raised concerns about the integrity of tabulation. However we note that the number of cards submitted for this audit is small relative to prior years.” But surely there is more to the vote machines, such as how the paper cards are translated into data on those memory cards. I couldn’t find any audit of the tabulation machines themselves.

     
    • jeffreyaackerman

      October 8, 2016 at 2:15 am

      Did you ever see the documentary entitled “Hacking Democracy”?

       
    • Richard Charnin

      April 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      The margin of error is based on the number of respondents. That’s it. Google “margin of error”.

       

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: