RSS

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

19 May

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 2016 

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob of Fraud
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
Probability that at least n of 26 Exit Polls exceed the margin of error for Sanders
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image
 
44 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

44 responses to “The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

  1. Bev

    May 19, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    You were effective. That is why they cancelled exit polling data. Now, they want totally blind elections where you have to believe what they tell you.

    I think this comes then at a good time:
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/200pm-water-cooler-5182016.html

    Oregon, Kentucky
    “Sanders is considering seeking a recount in Kentucky, where Clinton was clinging to a lead of a half percentage point” [Bloomberg]. Probably wise.

    Everyone encourage Bernie to Recount Kentucky.

     
    • Steve

      May 20, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      Also Bernie will win Oregon with more than 60% of the vote, they had many more ballots to count and as they come in he is winning a larger percentage of them.

       
  2. Bev

    May 19, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Oh good, that posted. Been having trouble here and elsewhere.

    Bernie RECOUNT KENTUCKY
    Everyone send this to Bernie and everywhere else. Bernie needs to talk to Bev Harris now on how to mitigate a new fraud she found in the machines in Kentucky when he considers his Recount of Kentucky. Bev Harris’ new investigation is below, and the last chapter on how to mitigate is to come. Fast. Hopefully. Bernie needs a early preview.

    In addition to Kentucky, Bernie needs to match up Richard Charnin’s exit polling work, with type of machines used in each state, county and precinct, with the new work of Bev Harris which names the companies whose machines included “a fractional vote feature embedded in each GEMS application” which were set up to conduct fraud.

    The timing is just right, Now, made available by the best election integrity people whose work can make the difference along with other activists to help us save our democracy, kids, jobs, economy, climate, future and species. Now is the time. BERNIE, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. TALK TO BEV HARRIS AND RICHARD CHARNIN.
    ………

    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

    Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
    By Bev Harris May 12, 2016
    tags COMPANIES, ELECTIONS INDUSTRY, MAKE AND MODEL, RESEARCH

    1 – Summary –
    This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

    GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, (upcoming) California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.
    snip

    All:
    Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1


    Part 2: Context, Background, Deeper, Worse
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-2


    Part 3: Proof of code
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-3

    
Part 4: Presidential race in an entire state switched in four seconds
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-4


    Part 5: Masters of the Universe
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-5

    
Part 6: Execution capacity – coming –
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-6


    Part 7: Solutions and Mitigations – coming –
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-7

    …….

    Bernie needs to match up Richard Charnin’s exit polling work, with type of machines used in each state, county and precinct, with the machines found by Bev Harris that were set up to conduct fraud. The timing is just right. Now. We can save each other.
    ………

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/welcome_to_1984_20160514

    Chris Hedges
    Welcome to 1984

    Much of the left, (Ralph) Nader argues, especially with the Democratic Party’s blatant rigging of the primaries to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination, grasps that change will come only by building mass movements. This gives the left, at least until these protofascist forces also give up on the political process, a window of opportunity. If we do not seize it, he warns, we may be doomed.

     
  3. Harrison Paul

    May 19, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Thank you for you tireless dedication to exposing the plundering of our society by the neoliberals and others who have taken over the system.

     
  4. Bev

    May 19, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Let’s see if this posts. I have tried app. five times:

    In addition to Kentucky, Bernie needs to match up Richard Charnin’s exit polling work, with type of machines used in each state, county and precinct, with the new work of Bev Harris which names the companies whose machines included “a fractional vote feature embedded in each GEMS application” which were set up to conduct fraud.

    The timing is just right, Now, made available by the best election integrity people whose work can make the difference along with other activists to help us save our democracy, kids, jobs, economy, climate, future and species. Now is the time.

    BERNIE, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. TALK TO BEV HARRIS AND RICHARD CHARNIN.
    ………

    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

    Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
    By Bev Harris May 12, 2016
    tags COMPANIES, ELECTIONS INDUSTRY, MAKE AND MODEL, RESEARCH

    1 – Summary –
    This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

    GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, (upcoming) California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.
    snip

     
    • Richard Charnin

      May 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm

      I did not see your posts until the last few hours.

       
      • Wendy Fairman

        May 20, 2016 at 1:18 am

        Hi Richard, Great fan of your work. I am an neuroscientist and have been crunching some of election results this year and some in the past as hobby since 2004. Not a master statistician, but no slouch. In KY, I am seeing a noticeable trend in lower % votes cast/counted per population in a manner demographics or machine type doesn’t appear to explain. % votes cast seem to be lower in ‘coal country’ (esp ESE KY) vs sub/urban areas…is this something you have seen/noticed?

        Thanks for all your hard work, it has been a great pleasure to go through!

        Wendy

         
      • Richard Charnin

        May 20, 2016 at 8:07 am

        Thanks. I have not analyzed voter turnout percentage by county.

         
      • Bev

        May 21, 2016 at 10:19 am

        Pardon me Richard. I thought I had given enough time to see if just that was occurring. I know you have many other very important jobs, exit polling research, interviews, more, and I am sorry to clutter your wonderful site. I do know that Disqus does not allow me to post any longer, and many sites use Disqus. Others who are still allowed on Disqus, post Richard’s work and Bev Harris’ work at the most impactful sites with large audiences, as it may be your last. Also, send to Bernie.

         
  5. Bev

    May 19, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    That posted, then next the outline and links to this new investigation by Bev Harris.

    All:
    Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1


    Part 2: Context, Background, Deeper, Worse
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-2


    Part 3: Proof of code
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-3

    
Part 4: Presidential race in an entire state switched in four seconds
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-4


    Part 5: Masters of the Universe
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-5

    
Part 6: Execution capacity – coming –
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-6


    Part 7: Solutions and Mitigations – coming –
    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-7

    …….

    Part 7: Solutions and Mitigations to come. Bernie needs an early preview.

    Bernie, RECOUNT KENTUCKY.
    Bernie talk to Bev Harris and Richard Charnin. Everyone spread this around. I was having trouble posting here and elsewhere, but, not now, thankfully. Good luck to us all to save each other with a true Democracy.

     
  6. Carol Smith

    May 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Thank you for doing this work. I would like to put on facebook is that okay? Also how do I do that?

     
    • Richard Charnin

      May 19, 2016 at 5:48 pm

      I post on Facebook. You can insert a link to my posts on Facebook or anywhere else.

       
  7. Cindy

    May 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Even though Oregon has a closed primary, it is very easy to switch parties there and they allowed people to do so very late in the game… it’s also a state that is extremely pro-Bernie and they had a huge number of registration switches to Democrat from both no party and Republican and new registrations, presumably for Bernie… I believe it is very likely that Bernie got far more votes than is indicated in the 12 point spread that is currently being reported with 96% (supposedly) of the vote in.

    I also believe there are strong indicators of election fraud in Oregon in this primary:

    1. I personally observed Bernie’s votes, not percentages but VOTES, GOING DOWN as the votes came in. Many others reported seeing this too.

    2. There was something very fishy about the way votes were reported in one of the counties. I will hold back details on that until we get more information.

    3. Early votes were much more favorable to Hillary Clinton than were later votes…. I’ll explain why this is significant below but first:

    Chipper Phillips, an attorney in Broomfield, Colorado, posted this trend in the Bernie Activists Group on Facebook:

    At 60% of vote … WE were up 6.0%
    At 61% of vote … WE were up 6.2%
    At 62% of vote … WE were up 6.4%
    At 63% of vote … WE were up 6.6%
    At 64% of vote … WE were up 6.8%
    At 65% of vote … WE were up 7.0%
    At 66% of vote … WE were up 7.2%
    At 67% of vote … WE were up 7.6%
    At 68% of vote … WE were up 7.8%
    At 69% of vote … WE were up 8.0%
    At 70% of vote … WE were up 8.2%
    At 71% of vote … WE were up 8.4%
    At 72% of vote … WE were up 8.6.%
    At 73% of vote … WE were up 8.8%
    At 74% of vote … WE were up 8.8%
    At 75% of vote … WE are currenty up 9.0%

    I watched this trend very closely too and can confirmed that this was indeed the trend. Now, Chipper Phillips likely started at 60% because we very quickly got to 60% of the vote reported Tuesday night and then it just stagnated a very long time, hours in fact… it then started creeping up until the wee hours of the morning where it basically stopped in the lower 70s until the next morning during business hours PST, when it started creeping up again. I can attest that the trend Chipper Phillips posted continued in the same way as more votes came in on Wednesday…. and I’m talking about the trend that Bernie consistently nets more votes, gains percentage, as the later votes come in…. and in what I presume to be a linear way. Keep in mind, these votes are coming from all over the state.

    I have been on the phone/email with several people from the Oregon SOS, elections division, including the director, and I have confirmed several things that I think are important… I will report more on this later but for now:

    Each county in the state tabulates their own votes using some form of scanning equipment to scan the paper ballots. The equipment is different among counties and I do have a list of that equipment. All counties upload their results electronically to a CENTRALIZED database called the Oregon Centralized Voter Registration System (OCBR). This centralized database was created about 10 years ago by HP and was based on something called SABER.

    KEY POINT:

    I believe this is extremely important… I verified that the counties upload their votes (electronically to the database stored electronically) AS THEY COME IN. They do not wait until all the ballots are received and then scan them all. They scan the early ones and go ahead and upload them. Remember, Oregonians have a two week period to send in their mail-in ballots or drop them off at one of many boxes… the whole state votes this way.

    In other words, the early votes are stored in that one central database for many days BEFORE the last minute votes are scanned and uploaded. I’m also told that the election people can see the totals from this centralized database even though the general public is not told and it is not viewable on the website until after the deadline to drop off a ballot.

    This is why we saw a big dump of votes…. followed by a short stagnation… then another little dump… and then a very long stagnation at around 60+% of the votes reported. That first 60 or so percent of the votes that came in represented early votes that had been stored in the centralized database for a while….

    Now… call me crazy if you will BUT when I see that HRC is only 6 percent behind in the early vote spread across all counties and then we see a STEADY RISE in Bernie’s share as the late vote comes in (from ALL COUNTIES)… and we see some other abnormalities…

    AND… given the fact we’ve had rampant election fraud in every state that has voted thus far… and we saw a totally bogus poll done in Oregon that was so badly “rigged” for HRC (they barely polled younger voters for example) that many respected websites refused to even post the results of this poll…

    I believe it is very possible that the early vote (60 or so percent) was manipulated and the later vote was not, or not by nearly as much, and that’s why we’re seeing the trend line we’re seeing.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      May 19, 2016 at 6:02 pm

      Great analysis. You should post this on Facebook,

       
    • Cindy

      May 20, 2016 at 8:14 pm

      I have numbers, as they were reported, as results came in, starting with initial 8pm numbers, directly from a few of the largest counties now, so not the AP numbers… looks like same basic trend… big “linear” rise in Bernie’s numbers as the “late votes” came in after the first report.

      Multnomah County (Portland) has published a total of 8 updates online (others I had to specifically request it… and the state said they don’t have the numbers as they came in!!): https://multco.us/elections/current-and-upcoming-elections

       
  8. Cindy

    May 19, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Richard,

    Can you help me with some math… yes, I know I should be able to do this… but nonetheless, I’m struggling…

    I want to compare the percentage of Bernie votes at 60% reporting to the “second” batch of votes that came in after that, i.e. early vote to late vote.

    I want to answer the question, “What percentage of votes did Bernie get in the votes that came in AFTER the first 60% had been reported?”

    Obviously, Bernie’s percentage had to be MUCH larger after the sixty percent to rise so much and so steadily…. but I can’t figure out how to calculate that. We went from a 6 point spread to a 12 point spread in just 36% of the vote (there’s still 4% yet to report).

     
    • Richard Charnin

      May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am

      Bernie had 67.2% of the second batch of votes.
      x= 67.2% = (.56-.53*.6)/.36

       
      • Cindy

        May 20, 2016 at 8:12 pm

        Got to try to figure out what you did there but THANK YOU!

         
  9. Cindy

    May 19, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    I should probably state that even though Bernie won Oregon, if the (early) vote was rigged, he is being cheated out of delegates! AND… I think this has happened in other states… where the official result was that he “won” but he actually very likely won by more, in some cases, much more, i.e. robbing him of delegates (to keep the delegates netted way down). The same is true in states where it was reported he lost but it was very likely true that he did not lose by as much as was reported so he would have picked up a lot more delegates (think Deep South). I personally think that they have tried to give him just enough “wins” to keep us all from protesting in the streets… but keep the margins small enough to maintain HRC as the purported winner.

    I should also point out why I mention the poll above. I have noticed, and I just spoke with a very knowledgeable person today who agrees, that the HRC team basically “forecasts” when they plan to rig an election but good! They come out with statements from staff and surrogates and bogus polls, etc, to “prepare” the public mindset for her to win when she shouldn’t or not lose as badly as people originally thought she would…. so when we see things like totally bogus polls (and that Oregon poll was TRULY BOGUS if you looked at how it was conducted… and you did not need to be a polling expert to see the obvious in that case), we know what’s coming! So, to this I say, LOOK OUT CALIFORNIA… it’s going to be Arizona 3.0 (with New York being 2.0)…. and really everywhere else….. but given what they’ve been saying… I am expecting MASSIVE FRAUD in California… of course we’re already seeing the voter purges and registration switches! And… new reports today of poll workers being told during training to give non-party voters provisional ballots!

     
    • Bev

      May 19, 2016 at 11:38 pm

      Cindy, I am so grateful for you and your information. Thanks so much, Bev

       
  10. Tonya Beltre

    May 20, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Reblogged this on The Peadittle Diaries.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      May 21, 2016 at 6:22 am

      Tonya, I enjoyed reading your blog. It’s bookmarked.

       
  11. Bev

    May 21, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Also posted with some changes at: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/election-fraud-my-response-to-joshua-holland/

    Exit polling has been cancelled in all upcoming primaries. Richard Charnin was too effective. They had to do something, their fraud was showing. So, now what? This:

    Bernie RECOUNT KENTUCKY. Talk to Richard Charnin and Bev Harris about their evidence. Use that in Kentucky.

    All Political Candidates who supported Bernie and also ran, but lost in Kentucky, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. You may have won.

    http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

    Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
    
By Bev Harris May 12, 2016

    ………

    Where are all the Politicians and Super Delegates who would step up now and save Democracy, Kids, the Climate, the Economy, the Future, and perhaps, even our Species? Even if you knew about all this fraud beforehand, now is what is important, a real chance for change for the betterment of the common good.

    Candidates who support Bernie but lost their races in Kentucky, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. You may have won.

    Candidates who support Bernie who have lost their races in other states RECOUNT YOUR STATE’S VOTES, or if those votes have been altered, or tossed, get rid of those machines stealing our Democracy and Future.

    Candidates who support Bernie and who have upcoming races in primaries, in order for your wins to be truthfully acknowledged, you must acknowledge the truth of the evidence by Richard Charnin and Bev Harris.

    http://berniecrats.net/

    The Berniecrats Network
    Candidates for public office who support Bernie

    This website provides a complete* listing of individuals who endorse Bernie Sanders and are active candidates for a public office. These are people who will do all they can to support and promote Bernie’s progressive plans. As Bernie says .. he can’t do it alone! If we want real change we need to make sure there are enough progressive leaders in office to actually pass the legislation to make those changes happen.

    Being a Berniecrat is not about party affiliation; it’s about the issues. Any candidate who publicly endorses Bernie (Twitter, Facebook, website) and supports his platform, qualifies for this list. You don’t have to agree with Bernie on everything, you just have to believe that he’s the right person for the job, and together we’ll get this country headed back in the right direction! To be added, Tweet me at @Bernie2016Yes.

    Remember that this page only includes people running for office, people who need your support (financial and otherwise). For other endorsements and information, see:

    /r/Berniecrats subreddit – Discussions about Berniecrats!
    Other websites listing Bernie’s endorsements
    Berniecrats Network—Random Issues for Discussion (blog)
    Pending Berniecrats – awaiting confirmation for inclusion

    If you’re looking for an easy way to support a number of Berniecrats in one fell swoop, you might consider using the BlueAmerica “Bernie Congress” donation page through ActBlue ..

    BlueAmerica’s “Bernie Congress”

    Just as we’ve come out in YUUUGE numbers to support Bernie, we also need to support these candidates to make sure the right people are in office!

    Each entry lists the candidate’s name and office along with additional information as available:
    w campaign website
    t Twitter
    f Facebook
    i endorsement info
    m graphic meme (from @EndorseBernie!)

    Incumbents are listed with the year they are up for election. This is a “work in progress” and will may change over time .. please report any errors or omissions by sending a Tweet to @Bernie2016Yes.

    We’re collaborating with @EndorseBernie to add memes to the tweets for candidates. A yuuge thanks to @EndorseBernie for these great memes!
    ………

    Cultural Leaders, like Tim Robbins, Lee Camp, and so appropriately, Divergent star Shailene Woodley, have always been important because of their large following, and are absolutely wonderful when they are on the side of regular people and the common good, just like Election Integrity people are.

    https://berniesanders.com/artists/
    Artists and Cultural Leaders for Bernie

    We — the undersigned artists, musicians, and cultural leaders of America — are excited to endorse a new vision for our country.

    It’s a vision that pushes for a progressive economic agenda.

    It’s a vision that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment, and gets big money out of politics.

    We endorse Bernie Sanders to become the 2016 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States of America.
    ………

    https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/volunteer-hub/

    Organizing Hub

     
  12. Cindy

    May 21, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    I think we need to get all this info to Election Justice USA, http://www.electionjusticeusa.com, not just the general email, but we also need to make sure it lands in front of the eyeballs of their top attorneys working through this team…. people like Jonathan Clarke who we know we can trust and I think may have the ear of Bernie, at the very least indirectly.

    I also think we need to encourage Bernie to RECOUNT OREGON!!! Bernie is STILL going up in percentage as the votes come in, according to the official website…

    Even at the percentage it is right now, Bernie would NET more than 100% more delegates if the percentage he won on the votes after the earlier vote was reported was about the same in the early vote.. so if that early vote was manipulated and we actually COUNT THE VOTES and discover that Bernie’s percentage was about the same (why would it not be?), then Bernie would NET more than double the delegates they’re predicting with the current vote reporting.

    And… before anyone suggests that Bernie’s percentage is going steadily up in the later vote because the big counties are slower to report…. I THINK THIS CAN EASILY BE DISPROVEN BY LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL LARGE COUNTIES… I have already started doing this and the large counties are showing the same basic trend of a steady rise for Bernie in the later vote.

    Even if someone tampered with some of the ballots in the interim, they could not tamper with all of them… hopefully!!! I’m hoping the counties themselves hold on to their ballots so the custody of the ballots is shared between lots of different players…. I’m checking on the custody of the ballots in some of the individual counties and I will be encouraging higher security… I hope others will do the same.

    I think there are definite advantages to recounting the votes in an extremely pro-Bernie state, where in fact some counties are off the charts pro-Bernie! The people of that state, and others around the country, can put pressure on each county to ensure COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY and FULL PUBLIC MONITORING during the hand counting of the ballots…. plus, we can study what happened in 2014 in each county and make improvements upon it. Nice to have a trial run so recently!

    RECOUNT OREGON BERNIE! It’s expensive but very doable and your supporters would absolutely love it if you do so. Evidently, presidential candidates in Oregon cannot ask for 3% random audits or specific precincts/counties to be recounted… if they ask for a recount, it has to be the entire state… this was according to the top people in the Oregon SOS, elections division… however, I’m going to ask again for them to check on this…. they were reading the state statutes as we spoke. A deposit of $8000 must be paid and then the remainder depending on what the individual counties calculate, based mostly on man and woman hours I think…. the last state wide recount was in 2014 and the total cost was a little under $147,000… so again… very expensive but doable…… and well worth it in my opinion…. Bernie would get a money bomb like no one has never seen before if he started asking for recounts! Oh, and if fraud is discovered, I don’t think we have to pay!!

    And may I suggest that if Bernie asks for recounts at the end of this primary… and we discover fraud… he would be an even stronger candidate in the fall! — basically a “shoo-in” as they say!

    Does anyone know much a recount in Kentucky would cost?

    Good News: Bernie does not have to decide whether or not to RECOUNT OREGON until AFTER June 7, as the Oregon election won’t be certified until June 16 and Bernie would have until 5 days after this to ask for a recount.

    How about a recount in Oregon, California, New Jersey, and possibly others right at the end of this primary and before the convention… add Kentucky to that too (but must be before June 7).

    GAME CHANGER??!!!

    That cabinet position Debbie Wasserman Schultz must be vying for may evaporate!

    Think we could publicly “shame” the “super” delegates into voting for Bernie if we prove election fraud going into the convention? AND…. do you think we could take back our democracy and ensure down ballot candidates we want have a fair chance?

     
  13. Richard Charnin

    May 21, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Once again, we need this posted on Facebook and blogs. If you are on Facebook, message me with your thoughts.

     
    • Bev

      May 21, 2016 at 7:05 pm

      Not on facebook nor twitter. That is why I had a little learning curve on Exit Poll Gate vs #ExitPollGate. I have here, until those comments turn to gobbledegook again.

       
  14. Bev

    May 21, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Hey Cindy, I wonder if there is a better strategy.
    Think we could publicly “shame” the “super” delegates into voting for Bernie if we prove election fraud going into the convention?

    It seems to me a very good strategy to ask publicly each super delegate and politician now about Richard Charnin’s Proof of Fraud of percentages/numbers of voters denied via his statistical analysis of Unadjusted Exit Polls which is CONFIRMED by Bev Harris’ proof of fraud by method, machine and therefore place. In order words, the FRAUD IS ALREADY PROVEN by corroborating evidence. Bev’s research catching that computer program to count votes as fractions fills out Richard’s data for a complete picture.

    I should also add that journalist Greg Palast is proving the scrubbing of registered voters and more and has a big part of the picture:
    http://www.gregpalast.com/
    http://www.gregpalast.com/palast-larry-kings-politicking/
    Palast on Larry King’s PoliticKing:
    We don’t count all the votes.

    Catch Greg Palast on Larry King’s PoliticKing with guest host Matthew Cooke on political elites rigging the electoral system. Palast gives Cooke a quick history lesson on vote trickery beginning with 2000–and why you haven’t heard the true story in the US main-stream media. – See more at: http://www.gregpalast.com/#sthash.g9LMK5J2.dpuf

    And, remember the GOP has much more experience at stealing democracy. After all, these voting machines are theirs. So, cleaning up the fraud now would ensure a more honest General Election. To do that, we need a more honest Primary Election now.

    http://www.gregpalast.com/trumps-gop-hitman-whos-stealing-your-vote-the-best-democracy-money-can-buy-podcast/
    Trump’s GOP Hitman Who’s Stealing Your Vote – The Best Democracy Money Can Buy Podcast

    Listen to The Best Democracy Money Can Buy podcast with Greg Palast and Flashpoints’ Dennis Bernstein. This week they expose Donald Trump’s go-to operative who would steal your vote — by accusing you of not being an American. The Vote Rustler of the Week: Kris Kobach, Trump’s man behind SB 1070, the “Driving While Brown” law.
    – See more at: http://www.gregpalast.com/trumps-gop-hitman-whos-stealing-your-vote-the-best-democracy-money-can-buy-podcast/#sthash.QBiFuUmo.dpuf
    ………..

    Therefore, since FRAUD IS ALREADY PROVEN, there is no need to wait for the convention as it needs to become much more widely known NOW that the fraud has already been proven. If Bernie and everyone else is quiet until the convention, well you saw the NV convention; they will control the message. So, spread the message NOW.

    Since Fraud is Proven, the next question is how to stop those fraudulent voting, scanning, tabulating machines owned by the abusive right now, to be replace by real evidence, hand counted paper ballots posted in precinct with everyone checking to make sure totals match precinct to state totals. And, what is the actual number of voters treated as fractions to be made whole and regained for a correct distribution of delegate counts for the candidates at the top of the ticket and rescuing those also treated to fractional voters Down Ticket to put better people in more offices.

     
    • Christi Flynn

      June 9, 2016 at 1:00 am

      I found Greg Palast today; excellent stuff!

       
  15. Bev

    May 22, 2016 at 12:50 am

    Cindy, charging citizens/voting integrity groups for recounts was the past. Voting Machine Fraud was Found by Bev Harris. Fraud is Proven. Therefore, it is the voting machine companies she listed who should pay all the costs for the Fraud they perpetrated on voters and politicians. We should not have to pay. They should pay. Now.

     
  16. Bev

    May 22, 2016 at 11:25 am

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sanders-Scolded-For-Callin-by-Kevin-Gosztola-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_DNC-Chairman_Democrats-DNC_Wasserman-Schultz-Debbie-160521-905.html

    Op Eds 5/21/2016 at 21:03:43
    Sanders Scolded For Calling Attention To Rigged Primary
    By Kevin Gosztola

    Reprinted from shadowproof.com by Kevin Gosztola

    Democratic Party leaders accuse Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaign of inciting “violence” among supporters by promoting allegations that the primary process is rigged in favor of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Surrogates for Clinton and pundits, who favor Clinton, have ramped up their attacks on Sanders for maintaining a robust campaign, even though the last votes have yet to be cast in the primary.

    Much of the pressure to rein in supporters stems from a belief that Sanders no longer has a right to run in the primary, and that he is now a spoiler candidate in the race. The pressure has ramped up in the aftermath of the chaos at the Nevada State Democratic Party’s convention, which was largely provoked by how it was handled by chairwoman Roberta Lange.

    For example, The New York Times published a report with the incendiary headline, “Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch.” It suggests Sanders intends to inflict a “heavy blow” on Clinton in California and “wrest the nomination from her,” despite the reality that she has not clinched the nomination.

    snip
    Hillary Rosen, a CNN political contributor and Clinton supporter, declared, “Bernie Sanders is losing this race, and instead of taking it like a man, he’s working the ref. He’s encouraging his people to think that the system is rigged. The system he signed up for as an independent to run in a Democratic primary. This constant sort of whining and complaining about the process is just really the most harmful thing, in some ways, he could do because he’s encouraging his supporters to think that the process actually is cheating them, and they’re not. This is a very well-documented process that he signed up for.”

    “What will be fatal to Sanders’s future as a mass movement leader–as opposed to the messiah of an angry, heavily white and male cult–is his continued insistence that his enemy now is not so much the corporate overlords, or income inequality, or the big banks, but a corrupt Democratic Party, epitomized by Wall Street flunkie Hillary Clinton, that has ‘rigged’ the election to thwart him,” The Nation’s Joan Walsh argued with dramatic flare. Walsh suggested Sanders wants to turn “the first female presidential nominee into a corrupt caricature of herself, a cross between Carly Fiorina and Marie Antoinette,” which means “Philadelphia will be a disaster,” as if there is a chauvinistic motive behind his continued campaign.

    Yet, there are several examples of how the Democratic presidential primary is and has been rigged…

    snip
    The Democratic National Committee has stacked the deck against the Sanders campaign by only appointing three of the 45 people he recommended for the Democratic National Convention committees. Critically, former Representative Barney Frank–a Clinton surrogate, who has been vitriolic in his criticism of Sanders–will co-chair the important Rules Committee. The lack of inclusion of Sanders representatives on the committee virtually guarantees a repeat of much of the disorder witnessed in Nevada–not because Sanders supporters are disposed to troublemaking, but because the DNC openly intends to stifle their efforts to influence what unfolds at the convention.
    snip

    The DNC chairwoman previously said on CNN, “[Superdelegates] exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”

    The system of superdelegates is a fail-safe to protect the Democratic Party establishment from populism–any groundswell of people within and outside the party, who may want to bring about radical change.

    No wonder there is excessive focus on how Sanders will help Democrats unify the party. This is what the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee want the public to be concerned about, so citizens overlook the extent of their collusion.

    But the story is not that Sanders supporters are unruly because Sanders has whipped them into a frenzy over “allegations” of a rigged primary process. It is not that they lack education about the process. Sanders supporters understand very well how the process works and what kind of candidate is supposed to make it to the end. Real and actual evidence of a rigged primary is what fuels such discontent.
    ……….

    Thanks to Richard Charnin, Bev Harris, and Greg Palast among others, we know. We know that real and actual evidence of a rigged primary is occurring and needs to be problem solved for a much better future for all of us.

     
  17. Bev

    May 23, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    More organizing:
    http://therealnews.com/t2/

    Breaking through power: A historic civic mobilization

    Ralph Nader Presents
    Breaking Through Power
    LIVESTREAM May 23-26 2016

    Only on http://www.therealnews.com

     
  18. Bev

    May 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    THIS IS GREAT NEWS:

    BERNIE SEEKS A RECOUNT IN KENTUCKY!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-kentucky-primary-recount_us_574492dce4b0613b512b6db7

    Bernie Sanders Requests Kentucky Primary Recount
    “The point is transparency,” Sanders’ aide Larry Cohen said on CNN.

    WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has requested a recount in the close Kentucky presidential primary against front-runner Hillary Clinton, state election officials said on Tuesday.

    The recanvass will take place at all 120 county boards of election on Thursday, according to the Kentucky secretary of state.

    “The point is transparency,” Sanders’ aide Larry Cohen said on CNN.
    …………

    Thank you Bernie Sanders!
    Thank you Richard Charnin!
    Thank you Bev Harris!
    Thank you Greg Palast!
    Thank you to all you voting rights activists, democracy activists!
    Such good news!
    …………..

    Forgot to put link to above: https://www.breakingthroughpower.org/

    PROGRAM

    Fifty years ago the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed sparked a serious awakening in our society that launched initiatives and organizations that have dramatically improved our personal health and safety, in the home, workplace, marketplace and the environment..

    To celebrate this milestone, and to reflect and renew our civic spirit and resolve we are convening an unprecedented gathering of public interest organizers, advocates, experts, and concerned citizens for four days at historic Constitution Hall in Washington DC.
    …………..

    10000 singing Beethoven – Ode an die Freude _ Ode to Joy

     
    • Bev

      May 24, 2016 at 10:30 pm

      Huffingtonpost article above calls it a Recount in title, and a Recanvas in body text.

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/bernie-asks-recanvass-kentucky

      Bernie Sanders Requests a Recanvass of the Kentucky Primary
      “He’s in this until every last vote is counted and he’s fighting for every last delegate,” said a campaign spokesman.
      AJ VicensMay 24, 2016 2:09 PM

      Bernie Sanders has formally requested a recanvass of the results of last Tuesday’s Kentucky’s presidential primary, where he lost narrowly statewide to Hillary Clinton, according to the Associated Press. State election officials will review the final tallies from electronic voting machines and absentee ballots cast in the Democratic primary.

      “He’s in this until every last vote is counted and he’s fighting for every last delegate,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told the AP.

      A recanvass isn’t a recount; it’s merely a review of the voting machine and absentee ballot data reported to the secretary of state. The request for a recanvass comes as Sanders and the Democratic National Committee begin to work out how his ideas will be incorporated into the party’s platform committee, and Sanders slams Clinton for backing out of a previously agreed-to debate in California, calling her move “insulting to the people of California.”
      ……

      So long as the “review of the voting machine” includes Bev Harris’ investigation findings that those machines have embedded a code which fractionalize votes able to swing whole states in seconds, then this is very good news.

       
    • Bev

      May 27, 2016 at 11:57 am

      The Kentucky Recanvas was Not a Recount. Nor, I guess was the find by Bev Harris of a fraudulent code in Kentucky’s voting machines to fractionalize votes, addressed as else wise those machines would be tossed. Too soon on the Ode to Joy. We still need to get rid of those voting machines and return to real evidence, hand counted paper ballots.

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article80059282.html
      Hillary Clinton wins Kentucky recanvass over Bernie Sanders, takes state

       
  19. Bev

    May 26, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/where-did-the-bernie-sanders-movement-come-from-the-internet.html

    Where Did the Bernie Sanders Movement Come From? The Internet.
    Posted on May 25, 2016 by Yves Smith

    By Peter Beattie, ex-lawyer and current PhD candidate in political psychology, forthcoming book “Crooked Timber and the Broken Branch: Why Democracy Is Not Working”

    A year ago, almost no one predicted that Bernie Sanders’ campaign would ever pose a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton’s nomination. Even fewer thought that a balding, white-haired, disheveled democratic socialist septuagenarian with a Brooklyn accent would become the clear favorite of young voters – particularly young female voters. Sanders seemed to come out of left field, and his gradual rise to virtual parity with Clinton in national polls has perplexed pundits – causing many to grasp at straws, while others ended up with their foot in their mouth. Hindsight being 20/20, today it may seem as though Sanders’ formerly-unexpected popularity should have been more widely expected – but how? How did Sanders go from a marginal, small-state senator on the sparsely-populated Left of the US political spectrum – with a widely-agreed-to-be negligible chance of challenging Clinton – to coming uncomfortably close to upsetting her?

    One hypothesis that can be disregarded is that the legacy media did the work of getting his message out. Last year, Sanders was effectively absent from television news, America’s go-to source for political information. This year has been marginally better, but he still received less than half of Clinton’s coverage. (Trevor Noah suggested that to get more TV coverage Sanders should try dressing as Trump’s podium.) Nor did he get much help from newspapers (or Politifact). And the commercial theory of media bias – that the media slavishly focuses attention only on what its audience is interested in – doesn’t seem to fit the data.

    On the internet, however, Sanders has received roughly equal coverage since late 2015, with a slightly more positive tone overall than Clinton. But that’s including news websites; on social media, Bernie is “breaking the internet”. He dominates on reddit, facebook, twitter, and instagram (though Cosmo, while agreeing on objective metrics, points out that Clinton wins on instagram aesthetics, like posting cute animal photos). No wonder Clinton recently introduced to her social media strategy some tried and tested policies from countries around the world, by hiring some help.

    In comments:
    …this article is about the importance of social media to Bernie Sanders’ magnificent rise. So, among many other social media influences, is this perfect meme (about Richard Charnin’s work) created by Lee Camp, picked up by Tim Robbins and others:

    #ExitPollGate

    How appropriate, from the star of the Divergent movies:

    https://twitter.com/shailenewoodley

    Shailene Woodley Verified account @shailenewoodley Apr 26
    Shailene Woodley Retweeted Lee Camp [Redacted]
    #ExitPollGate #FeelTheBern buckle yer bootstraps ladies and gents. our work is just beginning.
    Shailene Woodley added,
    Lee Camp [Redacted] @LeeCamp
    #Bernie supporters – let’s get #ExitPollGate to trend on Twitter! The exit polls show election fraud. #BernieOrBust
    ………

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/tim-robbins-we-need-to-fix-our-broken-election-system/#comments

    Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System
    Richard Charnin
    …..

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/election-fraud-my-response-to-joshua-holland/

    Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland
    Richard Charnin

    Last week, actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance.
    …….

    Bernie starts checking Kentucky today. So happy.

    #ExitPollGate: Where Are The Exit Polls From Kentucky Primary, And Should We Expect Any In California?

    #EXITPOLLGATE: Where Are the Exit Polls from Kentucky Primary, and Should We Expect Any in California?
    by Dawn Papple
    ……….

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/the-democratic-primaries-no-more-exit-polls-kentucky-and-oregon-recap/

    The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap
    Richard Charnin
    ………

    #ExitPollGate

    Now, we need a perfect MEME that can be twitterized for Bev Harris’ find on the illegal code in those voting machines that fractionalizes voters able to swing entire states in seconds. (What would Lee Camp think up?)

    Your Suggestions:

     
  20. Bev

    May 26, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Maybe tonight on Jimmy Kimmbel’s show or before California’s primary, Bernie will have results from reviewing Kentucky’s voting machines and ballots. Maybe we can get rid of those evidence missing/hiding e-voting machines putting the worst people, like Dennis Hastert, in power to rule over everyone.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sanders-Trump-Debate-in-CA-by-Meryl-Ann-Butler-Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Debate-160526-359.html

    5/26/2016 at 09:05:54

    Sanders-Trump Debate in CA?
    By Meryl Ann Butler

    In a primary season full of surprises, the possibility of a Sanders-Trump debate looms on the horizon.

    Last night on Jimmy Kimmel, Trump had astoundingly sane and reasonable things to say. He noted that he and Bernie Sanders were both fighting a “rigged system.” Trump cited the Democrats’ use of superdelegates, noting that “I think it’s very unfair what’s happening to Bernie Sanders.”

    Hillary Clinton recently backed out of her commitment to debate Sanders in California before the primary.

    Kimmel read a statement to Trump from Sanders, suggesting a debate between the two. Trump was agreeable, with a caveat.
    snip

    Kimmel noted that Sanders would appear on his show tonight.
    ………….

    What has Bernie found in Kentucky?

     
  21. Brandon VanDyke

    June 8, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Would you explain to me why the probability of fraud is so high in states where the actual results fall within the margin of error of the exit polls? Your table indicates that Maryland was only 0.1% off the mark, but that there is a 52.7% likelihood of cheating. Same with Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Vermont, etc.; shouldn’t these percentages be low as a result of considering margin of error?

    And especially with the states where exit polling was lower–New Hampshire and Oklahoma–these odds are low to negligible. 2.1% chance of rigging when Oklahoma’s result is outside of exit polling, but 73% in North Carolina with a result well within the MoE? It seems to me like this probability should be calculated as an absolute difference from the expected score.

    Would you be able to explain to me how these were calculated? I’m not getting it.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      June 9, 2016 at 1:27 am

      https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/democratic-primaries-election-fraud-probability-analysis/

      This is an analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

      The probability is a function of the 2-party exit poll share, 2-party recorded vote share and the margin of error (MoE). An exit poll cluster effect (30%) is added to the MoE formula:

      MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),
      where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents.

      There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.
      Ten (n) of the N= 25 polls exceeded the margin of error.The probability is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

      P = 1 in 4.5 Billion = BINOMDIST(9,25,.025,true)

      The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution. The probability is based on the difference (DIFF) between the exit poll share (EP) and the recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF is equal to the MoE, the probability is 97.5%. The average probability of fraud for all primaries is 97.4%.

      Prob = NORMDIST (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)

       
      • Jose G Perez

        June 12, 2016 at 3:35 pm

        I worked at CNN for more than two decades and was the main producer involved in the analysis and presentation of exit polls in the Spanish-language network from 1990 through 2010

        Day-of exit polling is NOT NOT NOT a sample of voters. It is a sample of a few dozen *precincts* in the case of a major statewide race. And these are not random samples, but hand-picked to reflect a few, select demographic characteristics, especially income, race and hispanic origin.

        In a national election like November’s there usually are two national exit polls, presidential and house of representatives. There are also statewide polls in many cases, and even some county or city ones.

        These skew the results a great deal. For example, the Latino population is much more inner-city urban than the general population. But because the poll needed to represent the overall distribution of the national population, in the 2004 national general election poll, the most heavily latino exit poll sites in the South disproportionately over-represented Cubans, a majority of whom have traditionally voted Republican since the 1960s.

        As a result, the overall national figure of Latinos voting for Bush was way off. The survey said 44%. Statistical approximations done by looking at the actual vote in a more carefully constructed set of Latino precincts put the upper limit of Bush support at 40% of the Latino voters.

        Pre-election polling –and most of all pre-primary polling– is subject to truly catastrophic failure. Just like elections themselves, the results are determined NOT by who “the people” vote for but by which people vote as modified by votes not counted.

        And in the case of pre-election polling, the outcome shifts as a function of which people the pollster determines will vote.

        As the posts on this and other blogs document, the major media cartel has become less and less transparent about its polling. But in the case of the Michigan primary, enough data was leaked to show how a 20-point Hillary lead in the pre-election polling became a Sanders squeaker upset in the voting.

        Basically, there was a record voter turnout and driving that turnout was massive participation by younger voters. They had been polled, but many of their responses had been discounted as those of persons not likely to vote. Who is a likely voter is determined by screening questions like are you registered, do you know where your voting place is, etc.

        To explain the difference between the results and pre-primary polling in Michigan, all sorts of demographic and issue shifts were cited by pollsters, talking head TV gasbags, dead-tree columnists and news analysts about how Blacks voted and people concerned about job loss from trade deals and so on, but the bottom line was that once you increased the weight assigned to younger voters in pre-election polls, the overall results started to approximate the actual outcome.

        If you took into account that this increase was driven by growing Berniemania, and thus the youth vote was 80% or more for Bernie (exit poll), not the mid-70s (pre-election telephone polls), things make sense.

        This increase in weight (percentage) of younger voters then tilts all other demographics towards Bernie as compared to unadjusted pre-election polls: preference by gender, race, income distribution, educational levels. The demos that didn’t really change in candidate preference were of 40+ adults and seniors. They did change in what percentage of the vote they accounted for: less in the actual vote than in pre-election projections.

        So there was all sorts of BS about how the white male Bernie Bros or Black or female primary vote was changing, but Occam’s razor says the simplest explanation is likely to be the right one: enthusiasm for Sanders among the young was greater than reflected in the pre-election polls.

        But the bottom line is that no, neither pre-election nor exit polls have anything like the precision that would be needed to keep elections honest.

        There is one more thing about polls, which is the response rate in telephone polls, how many of those you try to reach actually do respond. According to Pew, this collapsed from 36% in 1997 to 9% in 2012.

        Worse, in 1997, they reached an adult in 90% of the households selected for the survey and almost half (43%) cooperated. By 2012, they reached only 62 percent of those households selected and of those, 14% cooperated.

        In other words, increasingly we have less of an approximation of a random samples, and more of a self-selected sample of a small minority of the population.

        Now consider two ways of presenting the same survey, using roughly the proportions outlined by Pew for the 2012 response rate. In this hypothetical, we reached only half the targeted households and and only one in five cooperated, for a final response rate of 10%.

        We see in the newspaper:

        Candidate A: 55% (660 is the actual unpublished number)
        Candidate B: 45% (540)

        With a survey size of 1200 and a Margin of Error (MOE) of 2.8%. We see this as a highly significant result: a 10% difference, well beyond the MOE.

        But the more scientifically accurate presentation of the poll is

        Not reached: 50%
        Reached but refused 40%
        Candidate A: 5.5%
        Candidate B: 4.5%

        With a survey size of 12,000 and a normal MOE of .89%.

        I say “normal” MOE because the statistical MOE depends on the proportion of the total sample size that we are interested in.

        For 5% of a sample size of 12,000, the MOE is .39%. So actually, the difference in the hypothetical is still statistically significant, but no one would say so just looking at the numbers.

        In addition, in U.S. media surveys are rounded to the nearest whole percent. In the case of exactly 5.5%, you might have a rule that says round to the nearest even number, which would give us 6% to 4%, or round to the nearest odd number, which would tie the two at 5%.

        So this is very important: there is not just the “margin of error” we’re told about, there is ALWAYS an additional margin of error of up to .5% when rounding to the nearest whole percent is used.

        The claim made by the U.S. foreign policy establishment that exit polling provides a safeguard against the manipulation of election results is bunk. It is usually deployed against people our government doesn’t like, and has roughly the same validity as had the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that we used to justify the invasion of that country.

         
      • Richard Charnin

        June 12, 2016 at 6:49 pm

         
  22. Jimmy

    June 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Greetings! I’ve been reading your website for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Dallas Tx!

    Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic job!

     
  23. supportusabantsa

    November 16, 2016 at 5:28 am

    Reblogged this on Oregon False Flags Exposed.

     

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: