RSS

2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

15 Jun

2016 Democratic Primaries:  Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

Richard Charnin
June 15, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This  is an excellent analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of  Tilburg University -(The Netherlands) and  Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of  Stanford University  (U.S.A.) .

The authors compare exit poll and recorded results in two groups of states : 10 with paper trails and 14 without paper. They reference my exit poll spreadsheet and CVS graphs as well as the NY Times for the recorded vote data.

I added the following  calculations to the Democratic Primaries spreadsheet  referencing the Geijsel/Barrigan spreadsheet. Sanders did nearly 15% better in the 14 states with a paper trail  than the non-paper ballot states. He won the unadjusted exit polls in the 14 states by 5.2%, but lost the reported vote by 2.7%.

10 States No Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-10 65.36% 33.30% 32.06%
2-party Reported 66.25% 33.75% 32.49%
2-party Unadjusted 62.54% 37.46% 25.08%
2-party Discrepancy 3.71% -3.71% 7.41%
14 States Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-14 50.38% 47.75% 2.63%
2-party Reported 51.34% 48.66% 2.68%
2-party Unadjusted 47.40% 52.60% -5.20%
2-party Discrepancy 3.94% -3.94% 7.88%
Paper vs. No Paper (EP) -14.91% 14.91%

Steven D  of caucus99percent.com: posted this note: This is a very long post, and contains the response of the authors of the study,“Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” to critics who posted highly negative and derogatory comments to my initial blog post on this matter at Booman Tribune. Unless you are a stat geek, feel free to stop reading when you reach the section marked Attachment.  

The authors  responded to critics of the analysis:

Dear Steven,
In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn’t have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn’t know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: .

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [; . And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there’s a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they’re accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it’s the latter. Though that’s our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

Corroborating studies and links being: (also a criticism on some of the above mentioned);; ; ; ; ;

I hope to have provided you with enough ammunition to feel somewhat at ease.

Kind regards,

Axel Geijsel

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.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 

 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 responses to “2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

  1. Oma Vic McMurray

    June 15, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Thank you for your dedicated work! I have been waiting to get this. This helps me believe that Bernie will announce he is running as an independent candidate for the general election. Any chance you could show how he would do? I think it would help too!

     
  2. dawn

    June 16, 2016 at 1:01 am

    I have been tracking the California Results at the summary level and county level. I have seen payterns that look very odd to me. I would live to send you the data and see what you see.

     
  3. logan

    June 17, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Your image isnt loading. Maybe upload it to drive separately, then link to that?

     
  4. CarlAntoine

    June 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

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

     
  5. Jennifer Winkler

    June 24, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I have come upon an observation that does not agree with the assertion at http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/ (in Figure 1) that the support for Clinton is 49% and the support for Sanders is 51% “by state voting paper trail status” in the primary elections.

    According to what is shown at https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state today, there are 16 states which are wholly or partially without a paper trail in their election process. The number of delegates shown at http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results for each of these states as having been earned by Clinton add up to 949. The number of delegates shown there for each of these states as having been earned by Sanders add up to 586. If we deduct these numbers from the total earned delegates for the corresponding candidate – shown at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html (2220 for Clinton, 1831 for Sanders), the results are 1271 for Clinton and 1245 for Sanders. This indicates that even for the paper trail states Clinton leads, although slightly.

     

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: