Richard Charnin
May 23, 2016
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
2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump
The Election Model estimates plausible state vote shares and calculates the electoral vote assuming a three-way race between Clinton, Sanders and Trump. It is not a forecast. It is meant to illustrate a possible scenario given certain assumptions of Party-Id and corresponding vote shares.
The model is flexible so that one easily change input vote shares and the Party-ID split. State vote shares and electoral votes are automatically calculated.
The model projects Bernie Sanders as the winner with 308 electoral votes assuming he wins 50% of Independents and 40% of Democrats. And of course, we assume a fair election and Sanders is on the ballot in all the states.
In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democrat,35% Republican and 24% Independent. Current surveys indicate that the current split is 29D-21R-50I – a sharp increase in self-identified Independents.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=5064943
Methodology
1-State Party-ID is adjusted proportionate to the change in National Party ID from 2014.
For example, Illinois 2014 Party-ID (47D-35R-18I) was adjusted to 40.6D-24.8R-34.6I.
2-The input National Party-ID vote shares are applied to each state’s Party-ID split.
3-The total Electoral vote is calculated.
Case I: Assumptions
National Party ID: 35D-25R-40I (conservative)
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 10%; Trump 85%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 30%; Trump 20%
Sanders defeats Trump by 35.25-32.75%, a 4.2 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 308-219 EV
| CASE I | Party ID | Sanders | Clinton | Trump |
| Dem | 35% | 40% | 50% | 10% |
| Rep | 25% | 5% | 10% | 85% |
| Ind | 40% | 50% | 30% | 20% |
| Total | 100% | 35.25% | 32.00% | 32.75% |
| Electoral Vote | 538 | 308 | 11 | 219 |
Case II: Assumptions
National Party-ID: Dem 29D- 21R-50I.
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 5%; Trump 90%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 25%; Trump 25%
Sanders defeats Trump by 37.65-34.30%, a 4.3 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 329-209.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sanders’ vote share over a range of assumptions. He wins 10 of 12 scenarios.
| 2016 Estimated | ||||
| CASE II | Party ID | Sanders | Clinton | Trump |
| Dem | 29% | 40% | 50% | 10% |
| Rep | 21% | 5% | 5% | 90% |
| Ind | 50% | 50% | 25% | 25% |
| Total | 100% | 37.65% | 28.05% | 34.30% |
| Electoral vote | 538 | 329 | 0 | 209 |
| Sanders% Dem | ||||
| SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS | 35.0% | 40.0% | 45.0% | 50.0% |
| Sanders % Ind | Sanders | |||
| 55% | 38.7% | 40.2% | 41.6% | 43.1% |
| 50% | 36.2% | 37.65% | 39.1% | 40.6% |
| 45% | 33.7% | 35.2% | 36.6% | 38.1% |
| Trump | ||||
| 55% | 33.3% | 31.8% | 30.4% | 28.9% |
| 50% | 35.8% | 34.30% | 32.9% | 31.4% |
| 45% | 38.3% | 36.8% | 35.4% | 33.9% |
| Sanders Margin | ||||
| 55% | 5.5% | 8.4% | 11.3% | 14.2% |
| 50% | 0.5% | 3.35% | 6.3% | 9.2% |
| 45% | -4.6% | -1.7% | 1.3% | 4.2% |
| Sanders Margin (000) | ||||
| 55% | 7,036 | 10,780 | 14,524 | 18,268 |
| 50% | 581 | 4,325 | 8,069 | 11,813 |
| 45% | -5,874 | -2,130 | 1,614 | 5.358 |
Richard Charnin's Blog 
Dale Franson
May 23, 2016 at 8:41 pm
Why is “National Party ID: 35D-25R-40I” in the model when you state “that the current split is 29D-21R-50I?” How did you arrive at the 35D-25R-40I split?
Richard Charnin
May 23, 2016 at 10:40 pm
I decided to be conservative. You can run the model with the current split.
It’s a model, not a forecast.
Play what if.
Garrett Green
June 28, 2016 at 6:37 pm
Hi Rich, quick question. The above is only 1 month old. (3 years in political time). I wondered if you had today’s probable result if there was a 3 way national election twixt Sanders/Clinton/Trump. It would be cool if you answered on my Facebook site (for Bernie) called The Great American Majority with a link to take readers back here to your spot … which should be read my more people! I’ll also give it a boost on my regular Facebook site (over 1700 members). People are looking for a way to get Bernie back into the race. Right now it’s being stolen from him by the manipulations of Hillary and the strained machinations of the DNC. Come on, Rich, give us some HOPE! Thanks for your great work. Cheers! Garrett, The Great American Majority
PS That majority, btw, is Democrats and Independents… as you know, the biggest voting bloc in the history of America – yet we can’t get Bernie up for election and voted on by the Bloc. It is so maddening, because the bottom line here is that if Hillary pulls this off at the fake Convention in Philly the result is Minority Rule in America. (A country dedicated and founded on Majority Rule.)
Drives a man to drink, I tells ya.
Richard Charnin
June 29, 2016 at 6:58 am
tom
November 18, 2016 at 8:17 pm
i lik he way you model….but..sadly this proves nothing…since the amount of variables that would have occurred during the actual campaigning is impossible to measure in any way.
Kathy Dopp
May 24, 2016 at 12:21 am
Interesting analysis. In the general, it won’t be 3-way so the model will need an extra assumption of split of Bernie voters to each type to Clinton vs. Trump. (Note: if the US had an open, honest method of casting and counting votes Bernie would, most likely, win the Dem. primary, but, since US states, sadly, count virtually all votes in secret, i.e., allow private companies having partisan owner/operators to count, and often, also cast votes, I think it more likely Hillary will be the Dem. candidate.
Cindy
May 24, 2016 at 4:11 am
Richard, I’d love to see you apply some of this to include the Libertarian candidate…. I haven’t had time to research it more but supposedly the Koch brothers are thinking about backing him and he may have a popular Republican running mate… some are predicting he could reach the 15% for debates, i.e. we may already have a three way race….
Nathan Gant
May 24, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Can a citizen request samples of mail-in ballots to conduct his/her own exit polling?
Also, are citizens restricted in any way from their own exit polling after a voter has voted and is leaving a voting precinct?
Richard Charnin
May 25, 2016 at 2:52 am
I don’t know the answer to that.
Nathan Gant
May 25, 2016 at 5:24 am
As a formed whistleblower (designated by a state auditor when I was employed in a Florida univesity), I’m interested in integrity in the public sector, especially in voting systems. How exit polling can be implemented by an organization of dedicated citizens. Instead of leaving it to the whim of corporate sponsors who do not necessarily serve the public interest, and have decided as you know to cancel the exit polling in the last few Democratic primaries for 2016..
I guess to better answer my own question, I searched and found some focus groups in this regard:
electionintegrity.net
electiondefensealliance.org
verifiedvoter.org
They seem to have some links where citizens can get more information or actually volunteer in exit polling or post-election auditing.
I would think that exit polling and post-election auditing should all be part the same process. Why trust the same gov. officials for post-election audits when a responsible citizenry could perform the same function with exit polling? Quality control is a separate process.
It would seem to be a waste resources and re-inventing wheels to let same gov. officials do post-election audits when the official numbers are suspect.
Cindy
May 25, 2016 at 8:11 pm
Hi Nathan, what state are you in? I believe there will be at least a “beta” test of citizen exit polls in California…. but you’ll need to verify that. Check out: http://democracycounts.org
The key people involved can be found at the bottom of this page: http://democracycounts.github.io/about-us.html
Nathan Gant
May 26, 2016 at 11:12 am
I live in Florida (central). I suspect this state may yet again one of the 2016 ‘ground zero’ states this election.
Election fraud appears to be almost habitual in official state offices now. No one fears the consequences of exposure, when there is all this secrecy in place.
I have been to electionintegrity.net. It’s seems like a decent site.
verifiedvoter.org and electiondefensealliance.org seems to be about as good.
I followed one other hyperlink – floridavoters.org – and emailed one of the supposed members a few days ago, I told him I was a previous former state whistleblower (was designated in 2015 by a university auditor when I was employed in a state of Florida job), that I was interested in integrity of voting systems. So far they appear to be ignoring me. I wonder why? A pointless question.
I agree with Richard. Just who are these ‘quality control’ folks voting for, anyway?
I’m glad the American Statistical Association is active in this important struggle for verified voting and honest elections. I only majored with some upper level courses in college so I don’t have the level of expertise as Richard Charnin. But I understand confidence intervals and margins of error.
I have my own p/t business now so I am much more available for volunteering.
I’d love to get involved in citizen exit polling here in Florida, but IMHO all this is a large-scale “Manhatten Project” sort of thing. You can do it piecemeal and expect to get big-picture results. A large organization working all the way down to the local level precinct by precinct is needed. All by independent and motivated citizenry.
Richard Charnin
May 25, 2016 at 8:17 pm
I agree 100%. We need our pollsters to ask just one question: Who did you just vote for?
Simple. Fast. Honest.
Bev
May 26, 2016 at 11:31 am
Just to let you know, your site is losing some of your articles and has to be reloaded to try to regain all. However, I cannot get back your newest article on Connecticut which included the link to
http://www.inquisitr.com/3110333/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
………
Was it CNN? Did CNN make you take down the article because you showed their graphic of Bernie so very far ahead in Kentucky correct, or was it Connecticut?
Richard Charnin
May 26, 2016 at 12:51 pm
I deleted the latest post. The CT vote shares were for preference, not actual votes
Bev
May 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm
I am feeling better then.
And, Sanders begins his review of those voting machines today, I believe. Perhaps, he will have something to say tonight on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, or by California, if he and Trump debate without Clinton.
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.
Trump noted that the networks are the ones who make the big money on the debates, citing the facts that the Republican debate on Fox had 24 million viewers, and the one on CNN had 23 million viewers–the largest audiences each has ever had. He said the money should have gone to charity, and agreed to debate Sanders on that condition.
I’ve already fallen in love with Joe Scarborough for pointing out the crooked discrepancies in the DNC, and fallen a little out of love with Robert Reich due to his recent Facebook post. Now I’m liking Donald Trump a whole lot more. Clearly, anything can happen in this election cycle.
Kimmel noted that Sanders would appear on his show tonight.
……….
I think #ExitPollGate among other influencers had a lot to do with the following article:
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.
……….
From author Peter Beattie:
Peter Beattie, please review work by Bev Harris and Richard Charnin, as Sanders’ share of states votes is greater than mainstream media, and the political parties would have you believe. Bernie Sanders is reviewing Voting Machines today in Kentucky. This is so important to us and to your work which will need updating.
……….
We need suggestions to create a perfect MEME (like Lee Camp’s #ExitPollGate about Richard’s work) to tweeterize for Bev Harris’ work:
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
Importantly, she found embedded code in those voting machines in many states, including Kentucky and upcoming California, which was put there to fractionalize votes able to swing states in seconds. So, what do you think encompasses the many parts of that notion. My suggestion, some should also include the notion of Get Rid of Those Voting Machines especially before California, Bev Harris already found the evidence. My guess Bev Harris is already talking with lawyers as well as Bernie Sanders.
……
Dear Democratic Party, You did not put those Republican owned voting machines in our democracy. However, instead of thinking you can out ride this out with fraud in place, because sometimes, if you act Republican enough, you get elected, you should think instead that you could save our Democracy, Kids, and Future, if you Got Rid of Those Fraudulent Voting Machines. You could be heroes, instead of zeroes.
………
Tweeter MEME suggestions:
Kristen
June 1, 2016 at 4:58 am
I absօlutely love your website.. Ⲣleasant coⅼors & theme.
Didd you make thiѕ websie yoսrself? Please reply back as I’m wɑnting to create
my own personal website and would love to find out where you gⲟt tһis frοm or whаt the theme is called.
Thank you!
Richard Charnin
June 1, 2016 at 12:08 pm
I chose the style from the WordPress samples.
I did not design it.
I believe it is called Cocoa.
Garrett Green
July 9, 2016 at 9:34 pm
Hi Rich, I was wondering if you were going to do a new update on my earlier question… that is, the current status of a 3 Way Race comprised of Bernie, Hillary, and Trump. We were stunned by your earlier findings (that are now over a month old) that Bernie would be over Hillary 308 to 11 Electoral Votes. (I dismiss Trump as I believe he will implode or not survive a coup at the Republican convention… but it’s your call. This is a very hot topic as our Bernie is supposed to endorse Hillary on Tuesday… but remain lingering in the background as threats of an indictment swirl around. We in my Bernie group are trying to get him to join the Green Party after the Dem Convention and run Green. Based on your previous figures he swamps Hillary 308 to 11…. but of course those figures will change. We certainly hope you do an update soon! In the meantime, here’s a fresh piece of news I’m sure you’ll be interested in… the video that came out today claiming Bernie has a huge chance of winning if he goes Independent… by that they must mean the Green Party… because the deadlines for gathering signatures in the States have expired. Please take a look. It’s right up your alley. Thanks, Garrett Green, The Great American Majority https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8eYYfwQmOs&feature=youtu.be
Richard Charnin
July 10, 2016 at 2:31 pm
There is nothing to update. It was not a forecast. It was a sensitivity analysis of plausible scenarios based on vote shares multiplied by state party ID – of which Independents are the largest segment. Good luck with Bernie.
Garrett Green
July 10, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Thank you for your reply. Very nice of you. We in the Bernie Brigades are certainly up in the air at the moment. And I can’t help but say millions and millions of people are keenly interested in a forecast of a race among the 3 of them… as Bernie’s seriously contemplating going to the Green Party (a wildly historic move). In that instance of a 3 Way Race… I know millions of people would be interested in your call, which is far more reliable than most dilettante pundits. I will blast out your prediction should you feel like coming up with one, making sure your name is known among the 14 or so million Berners who are hoping for a victory. Your name should be more widely known, and frankly this is history in the making: The splitting in two of a once great Democratic Party. Hoping you’ll think about this incredibly important moment. Would Bernie win in a 3 Way Race? It is the biggest question of our time, a watershed moment in political history. And perhaps a great political Schism. Thank you for your time and without question your highly regarded expertise. Garrett Green
Richard Charnin
July 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm
The model indicates that Green Party candidate Jill Stein can win a fraud-free election, based on a) recent Party-ID surveys and b) assumed vote shares of Independents and Democrats. The model assumes that Stein is on the ballot in every state.
Skip Carpenter
August 8, 2016 at 10:38 pm
THIS IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COUNTRY
First, you must confirm if this scenario still holds true. If Sanders is not the preferred candidate among the three, then we should let the two-way race stand, rather than unfortunately sway the balance between Clinton and Trump.
But if Sanders is the preferred candidate among the three, as determined by accurate methods, we the people must be given the opportunity to elect the candidate of our choice.
I believe this can reasonably be achieved through a convincing informative campaign, making known statistically the will of the people, and giving the people the confidence that by writing in the the name of Bernie Sanders, we will indeed elect the candidate of we the people.
Richard Charnin
August 9, 2016 at 9:48 am
Bernie is not running. Jill Stein is.
A write-in vote for Bernie is a vote for Clinton since it takes away a vote from Stein.
Write-ins are not allowed in a number of states.