77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

07 Oct

Richard Charnin

Oct. 7, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 

The 2016 Democratic primaries have finally awakened the public to Election Fraud. Millions of voters who were unaware or in denial came to realize that our election system was rigged and that the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

The exit poll naysayers in the corporate media don’t dare mention the third-rail of American politics – election fraud. The media pundits remain silent on electronic vote rigging. They maintain that the exit polls are inaccurate and call truth-seeking activists conspiracy buffs.

The media is silent on the 2015 Year in Elections report, an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney. The report ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies in evaluating the  integrity of 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide. The State Department relies on exit polls in elections overseas (but not in the U.S.)  to check for fraud if the discrepancies exceed 2%.

This book focuses largely on pre-election and exit polls. Until the 2016 presidential election, unadjusted exit polls closely matched the post-election True Vote models. The final adjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.

Cumulative vote share analysis, based on actual vote counts, is another method which uncovers anomalies in the recorded vote.

Overwhelming evidence shows that Sanders won the primaries, despite the 3 million Clinton vote margin repeated endlessly in the media. He won the vast majority of 18-34 year-old voters.  His positions on Wall Street corruption, universal health care, eliminating student debt, etc. made him an overwhelming favorite among young voters.



Posted by on October 7, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

15 responses to “77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

  1. Jean-Jacques Barrera

    October 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    You are a genius! How many people would take the time and effort to do what you have done and continue to?!!

  2. jeffreyaackerman

    October 8, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I keep thinking that it would be very simple to keep everyone’s vote in a memory bank associated with their social security # , and their chosen password. Everyone could check that their vote was counted correctly. The only other programming included would be the totally transparent tally. I would call it vote-check. It could short cut all fraud.

    • Elizabeth Buiocchi

      October 9, 2016 at 10:14 pm

      That option is hackable, and thus would not eliminate election fraud. Oddly enough, the most fraud-proof measures are seemingly old-fashioned, such as paper ballots and inking a voter’s finger to prevent voting more than once.

  3. CarlAntoine

    October 9, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Reblogged this on CarlAntoine and commented:
    #BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #JillStein #JillNotHill {#Clinton #Trump} #MSMbias #ElectionFraud #77BillionOdds

  4. RLS_2

    October 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    Richard, thank you for being a truth-telller. Looking forward to reading your book … ordering my copies today. I plan to give the extra copies to family and friends.

  5. Lisa Gale

    October 9, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Just realized that your latest book has been published. Following your link to Amazon and found that it is not available. Will you publish more?

    • Richard Charnin

      October 9, 2016 at 2:08 pm

      Lisa, the paperback should be available in a few days.
      The Kindle edition is available.

  6. Michael Keenan

    October 9, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Or here is some back and forth with Ian Masters over Russian play.
    [audio src="" /]

  7. bj

    November 16, 2016 at 8:32 am

    In the 2016 California Democratic Primary Clinton and Sanders combined received 99.1% of all votes. None of the other 5 candidates on the ballot (not counting write-ins) received more than 0.1% of the vote. In fact out of the other 5 candidates across all 58 counties, I saw only two cases where one of them received over 1.0% of the vote. There was 1.1% and a 1.7%. Everything else 0.1%- 0.8% usually closer to 0.1% and 0.2% Shocking!

    • Kevin Trye

      November 20, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      The Rocky case should answer your question.

      • bj

        January 6, 2023 at 12:14 pm

        I never saw this reply until now. Video n/a in this country wtf?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: