## Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

13 Apr

Richard Charnin
4/13/2016

Bernie Sanders is leading 50.4-49.6% based on the unweighted average of all 34 caucuses and primaries. Let’s accept the reasonable premise that the primaries have been fraudulent and Sanders won in MO, MA, AZ, OH,IL, IA, and NV.  Electoral votes are directly proportional to state voting population.  Clinton has won 11 RED states with 160 EV. Sanders won the other 23 states with 188 EV. Vote the tables below were created by Ted Soraes

Based on late exit polls (which had yet to be adjusted to match the recorded vote), Sanders is leading by an unweighted 52.4-47.0%.  The lead must be even greater since votes were stolen from Bernie in the RED states. Proof? Check the average 8.7% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded votes in the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 17 of N= 18 primaries. The probability P=0.000072 or 1 in 13,797. The spreadsheet function is P= 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true). There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was not due to chance and must have been the result of election fraud.

Wyoming

Bernie was a 56-44% winner in the caucus, yet Hillary won 11 of 18 delegates!  In 12 counties, 54% of Clinton’s votes were surrogates (mail-in), representing 74% of the delegates. Just 27% of Sander’s votes were surrogates. Contrast this to  the Nebraska caucus, where 20% of Clinton’s votes were mail-in.

From CNN: “A Clinton campaign aide said their ‘secret sauce’ in Wyoming was the state’s onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms.”  But there is no evidence of such a rule.  The aide was not named.

Wisconsin

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely  did even better.  At 4pm, the exit poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of white vote.  Whites comprise 88% of  WI voters. Assuming Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party).

The final adjusted exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicates that whites comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks  comprised 10% – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not  plausible. A pre-election poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP)  indicated that Sanders was  winning black voters by 51-40%.

The exit poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). According to the pollsters,  the vote shares are NA. How is that? Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Without this information, we cannot calculate the total recorded vote shares. The abbreviated totals have Sanders winning by 52.1-40.1%. The 12% margin is close to the official recorded margin.

Arizona

Arizona is the latest poster child of election fraud,  along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Sanders won Utah (a bordering state) and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?

The  National Exit Pool (NEP) of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ.  It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious. But  the networks called it for Hillary  with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll? Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won  the county by 54-43%- an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes  much further than this one poll.

Of the 15 Arizona counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson)  is second with 16%. In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was  54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. In 2016, 13  counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008. The 4.1% decline (17,000 votes) in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter  turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.8% to 56.0%.

Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% turnout. It is  a powerful indicator of  voter suppression. The  probability of the 12.9% difference  (160,000 votes) between Maricopa’s projected 62.1% voter turnout and the actual 50.2% turnout  is approximately  1 in  90 trillion.

The  probability of the  5.8% difference in voter turnout  between 14 AZ counties (56.0%) and Maricopa (50.2%) is approximately 1 in 13,000).

Super Tuesday

In the five unadjusted exit polls there were 7,220 respondents. Clinton led by 53.2-44.7%. In the final adjusted polls , there were 7979 respondents (759 additional). She led the final adjusted polls (which were matched to the recorded vote) by 55.6-42.4%. Clinton had 586 (77.2%) of the FINAL 759 respondents, or 21.9% above her unadjusted share. Sanders had 20% (24.7% below his unadjusted share).

DATA SOURCES
The table was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Michigan

Sanders did much better than his recorded vote in the Michigan primary.  Sanders had 590,386  votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%).   Sanders won in 73 of 83  MI counties with 56% of the vote. He won the preliminary exit poll by 52.1-45.9%, a 97% win probability. Clinton won urban counties Wayne and Oakland  with approximately 55% of the vote.

Once again, we have multiple confirmation indicating fraud: Cumulative vote shares, preliminary exit poll, absentee vote anomalies and other anecdotal information.

Cumulative Vote Shares  are a likely indicator of fraud. The lines should be nearly parallel, but invariably, vote shares rise for establishment candidates in urban Democratic counties. It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor.

In the CVS analysis, Sanders had approximately 56% at the 600,000 mark. Notice the abrupt change to straight lines at the 600,000 vote mark. They represent the largest counties (Wayne and Oakland) which used ES&S optical scanners exclusively.

Sanders had   54% of approximately 500,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia  voting machines. Clinton had  75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes and  51.2% of approximately 700,000 votes cast on ES&S Mod 100 machines. The percentages are highly suspect.

Sanders’ county vote shares  were negatively correlated to machine types. The ES&S Model 100 correlation was  -0.68. The bigger the county the lower Sanders’ vote share. Wayne and Oakland counties used ES&S Model 100 optical scanners. Macomb used both ES&S and Premier/Diebold/Dominion AccuVote optical scanners.

Late changes to the exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen.  Sanders  led the Unadjusted Exit Poll Gender crosstab  (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7% a 97% win probability.. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm.

But as always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%,  a near-exact match to the  RECORDED vote margin.  But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE.  The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain  114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?

Clinton won  by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Sanders won 68  hand-counted precincts by 58-41% (32,360 votes, 2.7% of votes cast).  He won 250 of  351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110.

There is a 97%  probability  that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error. The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect  (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability.

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Posted by on April 13, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

### 37 responses to “Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries”

1. April 14, 2016 at 7:24 am

Thank you for this careful analysis of the discrepancies between exit polls and later official vote counts. One thing hard to get at is exactly HOW are the votes counted and how is the integrity of that vote ensured? You mention some different voting machine types, but nowhere on the Sec of State’s website in my state (CT) is there any information about election technology and procedures to guarantee accuracy/integrity of the vote.

• June 1, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Will,
I am from CT and we have optical scanner tabulators which can be easily rigged though I don’t know the brand. They all suck! My friend Luther Weeks made sure when these computarized tabulators were foisted on us through the HELP AMERICA TO VOTE ACT (very Orwellian) that we have random audits in CT so we are somewhat protected. Unfortunately, the gov and Sec of state want t cut down on these audits. Other states have 0% verifiable elections!
we nee to go to Philly to protest this fraudulent election process and demand tes machine removed before November. Paper ballots publicaly counted NOW!

• June 5, 2016 at 11:34 am

COME TO THE MARCH ON THE DNC ON JULY 25! EVENTS WILL GO ON ALL WEEK! Come to protest the election fraud that has taken place and demand Bernie be the rightful nominee. Go to marchondnc.com and book a seat on a rally bus in your state. I booked mine already!

• July 31, 2016 at 7:04 pm

I’m a Moderator of Elections in CT, with six years of experience before I studied and took the courses and multiple tests for the Moderator position. I can tell you that we work VERY hard to assure an honest election. The rules are very strict, the procedures for verification are complicated and specific, covering hundreds of pages, verified by multiple people, blah,blah. However, with these machines, it is impossible to assure that they aren’t electronically hacked before or during the actual election in many of the sophisticated ways that have been pointed out–add one vote and deduct another so the final numbers add up, etc. Only if fraud is conspicuous and a challenge is viable and accepted to create a hand count, will the results be questioned. So, I’m all for paper ballots being hand counted IN PUBLIC and damn the damn machines. They are a persistent, serious threat to fair elections IMO.

2. April 15, 2016 at 5:35 am

It seems to be understood that there is election fraud happening, but no one is willing to do anything to stop it from happening, because everyone is on team Hillary and will lie, cheat, and steal to get her in the catbird seat. The democratic party in several states have found a way to bundle/funnel money through the states to Hillary’s campaign, bypassing the limit laws. Corruption abounds. If Sanders could find a way around it all–HOW GREAT would that be? Whisper of a dream.

• May 24, 2016 at 12:02 pm

MEET US IN THE STREETS OF PHILLY TO PROTEST THIS FRAUD OF AN ELECTION! WE ARE ON OUR OWN! IT IS UP TO US!

3. April 23, 2016 at 1:17 pm

Some of these states have early voting which favor HRC. Has that been factored into your analysis?

• April 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm

Exit polls do not reflect early voting/absentees.
Absentee ballots (75%) should not deviate too greatly from Election Day machine counts (50%).
Voting machine counts should not differ by 18% from paper ballot hand-counts.
Sanders had 58% in MA hand counts but just 49% overall.
Hillary had approximately 75% of early voting but just 50% in machine counts in AZ.
That is highly irregular. Draw your own conclusions.

• April 27, 2016 at 6:02 pm

I don’t doubt widespread election fraud is occurring. But in AZ they say the early ballots are dominated by the elderly. Is there a breakdown of these numbers? Of course, when you know most of your votes have come in early, all you need to do is close down 2/3 of the polling places on election day. It is likely these measures have been planned for years.

• May 22, 2016 at 11:07 am

Do you have numbers on early voting? I’d like some kind of reference to how much that would affect the exit polling. I’m trying to make good arguments to family trying to prove that the voting irregularities aren’t easily dismissible. One of the arguments they have made is that a lot of the exit polling problems could be caused by early voting, how should I counter this? Thanks!

• May 22, 2016 at 5:34 pm

My quick answer: Exit pollsters account for it.
There is no reason why early voting should be much different than on Election Day -unless of course the ballots are stuffed for a given candidate.
Unadjusted exit polls seem to work just fine in other countries.
And they are done by Edison Research which is funded by the National Election Pool.

http://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Election-Polling-Resources/Explaining-Exit-Polls.aspx

4. April 25, 2016 at 7:52 pm

What recourse do any of us have, if we want fair and honest elections? How do we prevent Hillary from being foisted on us, if Bernie is likely winning? Who is responsible for ensuring that elections are accurate and fair?

• April 25, 2016 at 8:57 pm

Those questions have been asked in every election cycle since 2000, but never has there been such awareness of the extent of the problem. At least 1 million march should march to DC, just like in the Vietnam War. And 100,000 demonstrated in front of the NY Times and CNN headquarters in NYC.

• April 29, 2016 at 5:55 pm

I keep sending letters to the editor to the NYT about the computarized fraud taking place through hidden counting on these computers. John Brakey presented evidence at a court hearing in Texas in April that these tabulators have a capacity to fractionalize the vote. This means they can weight votes differently. They are skiming Bernie’s votes.
NYT is complicit in this crime by its silence Cnn and Msnbc are the perpetrators of the psychological operation to explain why we should not believe our own eyes- like the big crowds, th enthusiasm the big voter lines. . They make up myths of who these phantom people are who are voting for Hillary.
WE need to pressure the NYT to tell the truth or at least let me do so by publishing my letter.
Richard, get Tim Robbins t keep tweeting.

• April 29, 2016 at 6:46 pm

NYT, CNN, MSNBC? What do you expect?
Keep after the NYT.
I expect we will hear more from Tim.

• April 30, 2016 at 3:55 pm

I am realizing that the youth of today and the progressive wing of dem and independents could be a third party strong enough to win. I heard Pap talking a little about it. I am ready to break up with the Dem party. I know this is my last shot. And I think the world’s last shot.
What do you guys think.

• May 24, 2016 at 11:59 am

We are the ones who will stand up and demand election reform and the nullification of Clinton’s “victory”! HA! Meet us in Philly to protest and march. Bernie will be our President if we fight back!

• May 24, 2016 at 12:00 pm

MEET US IN THE STREETS IN PHILLY TO MARCH FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!

5. April 28, 2016 at 3:28 pm

OK, there is voter FRAUD! It is well documented. Well shown and said! How do we STOP it and start over with real, genuine, honest vote counters? Is there someone out there who can lead the “CHARGE” to STOP the Fraud and count the votes correctly and the same way in every state as we are the UNITED STATES! We need a LEADER to get the ball rolling to correct and eliminate the FRAUD even if it means “starting the” Primaries all over on the same day, and taking several days to count the vote!

• May 24, 2016 at 11:55 am

We have to protest this election in Philly. The People United are what will make this right.
Check my other post on this blog about the plans underway for Philly.
Rev. Lynn Onderko

6. April 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm

I admire the work you are doing. It’s been clear since 2000 that stealing elections has become the American way to get elected. The exit poll analysis from this cycle makes it absurdly clear. One point I keep seeing this time, the 68 ballots in MA, isn’t really good evidence of anything IMHO, and it weakens the arguments to include it. If you look at those towns, they were all very small, and the small towns with optical scan machines of similar size, all had the same trend. See here:

• April 29, 2016 at 6:38 pm

There were not 68 ballots. There were 68 towns which used hand-counted paper ballots.
They were over 2% of total votes cast in MA.
And Sanders won them by 17% margin.
Statistically it is very significant.
He barely lost the machine-counted villages by 2%.

7. May 22, 2016 at 9:42 pm

Since 2000 there has been FRAUD! Think George Bush? It’s time has come that with the proof in this story, it is time to re-vote all on the same day as we do in November and have machines and honest human beings count that one day Primary Vote!

I want a President elected by the people, not some judge or people who don’t know how to count ballots so as to keep CNN and the NYT happy with being first with the WINNER!

8. May 23, 2016 at 5:00 am

• May 23, 2016 at 11:17 pm

Aloha,

My blog posts are tweeted automatically – and I’m getting lots of re-tweets!
Hope you buy my E-books on Amazon.
Just click Charnin in the Amazon search box.
Each book gives me a royalty so that I can buy a cup of coffee.

9. May 24, 2016 at 11:43 am

I think the best thing we can do is take it to the streets in Philly and demand:1. no more “black box voting” and clean up all forms of election fraud (Rep Conyers has legislation he has crafted with voter rights activitists such as Harvey Wasserman that is ready to go if we give them the political will to pass it before November) and 2. Bernie is the rightful winner of this contest and we will accept nothing less! I hear the Bernie Bros have permits for 3 venues for 4 days of rallies in Philly. Lots of other peoples are planing to come too. My dream is that it will be another Woodstock (I was there)!
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR LOVE! But remember, in organizing you have to step on the toe of your target until they give you what you want. OUR POWER IS IN OUR NUMBERS AND UNITY!
Rev. Lynn Onderko

• June 5, 2016 at 11:27 am

COME TO IN THE MARCH ON THE DNC ON JULY 25, 2016. EVENTS WILL BE TAKING PLACE ALL WEEK TO PROTEST THE ELECTION FRAUD THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND DEMAND BERNIE AS THE RIGHTFUL NOMINEE! Go to marchondnc.com and you can book your seat on a rally bus from your state!

10. June 11, 2016 at 10:40 pm

Reblogged this on carlantoine and commented:
#BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #PoliticalRevolution #OfThePeople #BernieOrBust {#Clinton #Trump} #JillStein #ElectionFraud #ExitPoll

11. June 13, 2016 at 4:33 pm

You bet there was fraud and it was massive! Go to trustvote.org, watch video, read latest material!

12. June 13, 2016 at 8:36 pm

I said this on the young Turks last week: we have forgotten who makes the election machines in this country. Voter fraud should not be a surprise at all to any democratic voter.

• June 13, 2016 at 8:51 pm

In what context did you say that? Call-in? Guest?

13. July 31, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Notwithstanding the proven election fraud, Bill Clinton broke election laws repeatedly and very specifically in MA. I’m a Moderator of Elections in CT. There are rules regarding voting rights and how elections are controlled. They vary a bit from state to state, like how far from the polls campaigning can be conducted. Bill Clinton was way too close with his bull horn–strike 1. His heavy security caused people to be unable to vote in at least one precinct, a felony–strike 2. He had no business inside the polls as he was not accompanying a voter–Strike 3. He thanked people for voting for Hillary, which is campaigning–Strike 4. This happened in four different locations and was repeated in other states. If he had done that at my polling location, I would have refused to let him inside, gone outside to warn him to get the hell away from the poll, and called the police on him if he hadn’t moved VERY rapidly to leave–and I would have been upholding the clear law in this regard. I can’t believe he got away with that and it’s not even counted as fraud by most reporters, yet, he clearly swayed the outcome so that Hillary squeaked out a “win”. I’m appalled and furious. And now, as if Hillary isn’t bad enough, the Dems are pushing to get them into the White House–a career criminal and dangerous hawk and her impeached, sexual-predator husband. Pardon me while I go throw up.

• August 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

GO GREEN! I just went Green. Vote for Jill Stein because she will CHALLENGE ELECTION FRAUD! WE HAVE TO HAVE MASS PROTESTS ABOUT THIS ELECTION SYSTEM! UNTIL WE GET IT FIXED. OUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT. Sorry for the caps but my hair is on fire!

14. August 6, 2016 at 2:35 pm

You are so right on!

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis