09 Nov

Richard Charnin
Nov.9, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
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

The 2016 Election Model Forecast , using Gallup Party-ID and the average of 9 pre-election polls, exactly matched the 306-232  electoral vote.  But Trump won the True Vote by  351-187.   

National Exit Poll matched to the recorded vote
Clinton 48.2, Trump 46.1, Johnson 3.2, Stein 1.0
Who believes Jill Stein had just 1.0%? Who did her votes go to?

Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA):
Model………..45.4%…..46.9%…..1.5%…….306 (adjust to 100%)

75% UVA (undecided voters allocated to Trump):
True Vote……44.3%…..48.5%…..4.2%…….351
Trump had a 96% popular vote win probability assuming a 2.5% margin of error.

Election Model vs. National Exit Poll (Party-ID):
Trump wins the EM by 1.5%.
Clinton wins the NEP by  2.1% (forced to match the recorded vote). 

Election Model Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Democrats 32% 89% 6% 2% 1%
Republicans 28% 5% 89% 3% 1%
Independents 40% 32.6% 43.9% 8.0% 5.0%
Total 94.6% 42.9% 44.4% 4.7% 2.6%
Total-100% 100.0% 45.4% 46.9% 4.9% 2.7%
Electoral Vote   232 306  
Recorded NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
Democrats 36% 90% 8% 2%
Republicans 33% 8% 88% 4%
Independents 31% 42% 46% 10%
Total 100% 48.2% 46.1% 4.8%
Electoral Vote   232 306

Election Model: Track Record
Recorded EV forecast vs. True Vote:
2008: Obama 365 EV vs. Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2012: Obama 332 EV vs. Obama 55.2%, 380 EV
2016: Trump 306 EV vs. Trump 48.5-44.3%, 306 EV (75%  UVA to Trump)


Posted by on November 9, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,


  1. streetliberation

    November 9, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    these are appreciated but we don’t understand why they are created. after all the numbers u might want to add, “so this means — ” and tell us what it means. everyone is not a numbers person. thx.

    On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Richard Charnin’s Blog wrote:

    > Richard Charnin posted: “Richard Charnin Nov.9, 2016 ELECTION MODEL VS. > RECORDED VOTE BEFORE UNDECIDED VOTER ALLOCATION (UVA) > Vote………..Clinton….Trump…..Margin…..Evote > Model………42.9%…..44.4%…..1.5%…….306 (before UVA) Actual > Recorded…47.7%…..47.5%….” >

  2. Carol Bronder

    November 9, 2016 at 11:52 pm

    Clear evidence of some tampering; i.e., AZ, CA, more. She obviously did not win the popular vote.

    • Name

      November 15, 2016 at 1:38 am

      PA, OH, FL, NC are the notorious and traditional election fraud states. All four states are still held hostage by gerrymandered state legislatures, thus there’s good reason to expect continued election theft by their illegitimate “governments”.

    • Cindy

      November 27, 2016 at 11:30 pm

      Agree… very doubtful in my mind! We need to send messages to Jill Stein to count at least part of CA… that’s where she really ran it up…. pick heavy Jill Stein counties like Santa Cruz, San Fran, LA, and San Diego… I have to go check Santa Cruz right now… if it’s not above 5% for Jill Stein, something is HUGELY wrong!

      • Cindy

        November 27, 2016 at 11:59 pm

        Santa Cruz County shows 3.35% for Jill Stein…. very high write-in: 2.20%…. I’d like to know how many of those were for Bernie.

    • Kevin Trye

      December 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      Yes, this is America so you must assume (esp since Bush 2000 election) that the recorded votes are adjusted by various criminal elements, be they within the major parties or state authorities representing those party/corporate interests. And that means, the Russians didn’t do it. That’s the spin Doctors at work.

  3. David Medici

    November 10, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Hello, Richard.

    Thank you for your work on election fraud. But, I have to ask a favor.

    I, like most people, have a very basic grasp of statistics and statistical analysis. When I read the post above I thought, “What do these numbers mean? How, and why, are they adjusted? What does ‘EV’ mean? What is his model and why should I believe it is reasonable? Etc.”

    I would like to ask that you provide more narrative that walks neophytes throughly your analysis. You know the old saying, “Therefore are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Numbers themselves community I category nothing to the uninitiated: in fact, they just irritate. Narrative explaining your numbers, the analysis and the legitimate conclusions that can be inferred would be extremely useful and welcome.

    I hope that makes sense. I don’t like your work, when I can grasp it.

    • Richard Charnin

      November 11, 2016 at 12:29 am

      You don’t like my work? Fine.

      • David Medici

        November 11, 2016 at 8:16 am

        Richard, I did not say I did not like your work. In fact, I do. I also sent a comment a few minutes after my original comment explaining that for some reason unknown to me (I rarely visit WordPress sites) the link that took me to your site presented me with what I called a “summary” of your blog, and I asked you to ignore the original comment. You did provide narrative that gave context.

        Relax a bit.

    • Carol Bronder

      November 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

      David Medici – I think you meant o say “I DO like your work, when I can grasp it”. No wonder Richard was confused.

    • melanietmiller

      November 11, 2016 at 11:34 pm

      David, I would like to understand your comment…thank you if you will re-read your own comment and see if you wrote what you meant to write. Respectfully…melanie

  4. Just Me

    November 10, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    Richard, in many of your previous posts, you talk about unadjusted exit polls and adjusted exit polls. In this election, do we have any way of finding out the unadjusted numbers? In other words, do we have any way of telling how the people REALLY voted?

    You can make your best guess about how people really voted by using your TRUE VOTE system, and I’m glad you’re doing this. Still, it would be nice to have proof that your true vote numbers are correct, and the unadjusted exit polls would give us such proof in the form of hard data.

    • Richard Charnin

      November 11, 2016 at 12:01 am

      Up until this election I always assumed the early unadjusted exit polls were essentially correct. I used them in my analysis of presidential elections from 1988-2008 as well as in congressional elections. And I used the unadjusted exits in the primaries to prove they were fraudulent.

      But things changed in the 2016 presidential election. i do not believe the early exit polls which showed Hillary leading.

      Now they are saying Trump cheated based on the unadjusted exit polls from Edison Research. They are wrong. It was not rigged for Trump. It was rigged against him. Trump voters turned out in droves to overcome the BUILT-IN ELECTION FRAUD.


      1) How many reported votes switching from HRC to Trump? ZERO.
      2) How many reported votes were flipped to HRC? Many.
      3) The proof is overwhelming: the primaries were rigged for Hillary.
      4) Why would the establishment not rig the election for her?
      5) Trump overcame the election fraud with massive turnout
      6) The MSM realized that they had to show HRC winning the unadjusted exit polls after Bernie’s exit poll results in the primaries.
      7) Elections are always rigged for the establishment candidate.
      8) Hillary was the establishment candidate.
      9) She is a Democrat in name only (DINO).
      10) Trump probably won a landslide (367 EV?).

      I exactly forecast the Electoral vote in the last three elections.

      • andymilken

        November 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

        Great work, as usual, Mr. Charnin. BTW, have you ever heard of “GEMs” software and fractional vote counting?

        Yes, I posted on it and mentioned it in my book.

  5. Uva Be

    November 11, 2016 at 12:29 am

    I think their may have been another factor at play this time. Harvard study on media bias in the 2016 primary. The long game. They, whomever they are rigging the system. Wanted Hillary to lose long before Trump was a candidate. They didn’t think they were rigging the game for him. He was the wild card. They were simply focused on ruining her.

  6. D

    November 11, 2016 at 12:37 am

    It is possible that HRC not even waiting to see if she should contest close states is evidence of fraud. There were some fairly close counts that I could see someone legitimately wondering about. But if there were fraud and it failed, then one wouldn’t want to draw attention to it by looking for recounts. Well, it’s a hypothesis that can’t really be tested.

    The cover was always the polls: they showed her winning so if she won it wouldn’t be surprising, right? But she didn’t win and that barely seemed to surprise anyone of note. Did no one want too point out the emperor had no clothes? All the communities I was a part of for this election knew the polls were insanely wrong but the media kept pushing them.

    By the way, if people catch on to your method then party affiliation polls will start being gamed. (Lucas Critique) Stay wary.

  7. Kevin Trye

    November 11, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Obviously both parties are involved in these tactics over many years and elections. From my understanding of election fraud, it can occur in multiple ways, but primarily in four areas:

    1) Making it harder to vote. Reduce polling stations, voter ID, hours open. (Mainly Republicans doing it)
    2) Stripping minority voters from the rolls using cross check data. Greg Palace outlined this in a recent interview. (A Republican tactic)
    3) Altering the actual vote count, the most common method is to ‘fractionalize’ the votes, providing a natural bias in larger polling centers and cities. (Democrats mainly)
    4) Steal some votes, most commonly to avoid detection, from the third party or place-getter. The classic example is Rocky in the primaries. (Benefit Democrats)

    However what you’re saying is that if we get legitimate, unadjusted exit polls, which indicate voter intent, vs the final, we can see if fraud occurred and which of the above methods or parties prevailed, which would vary state to state, county to country. I can see why voters are confused.

  8. Dori Schwartz

    November 11, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Mr. Charnin, What I don’t understand, is why would the Clinton campaign cheat, but not enough to win. Surely they have people that can do the calculations. I know you said earlier that Trump supporters came out in droves to overcome it, but you were able to correctly predict the outcome from looking at the polls. Any thoughts as to why that is?

    • Richard Charnin

      November 13, 2016 at 12:39 am

      The election is a dynamic process.
      In life, just because someone cheats does not mean they will win.

  9. melanietmiller

    November 11, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    Dear Richard, I appreciate your thinking and the work you have put into these numbers. I am an “English major,” writer, singer, philosopher and all around great girl…HOWEVER…I would like to understand your perspective…can anyone learn this stuff or just be amazed at someone who perceives and thinks as you do? Warm regards…melanie

    • Richard Charnin

      November 13, 2016 at 12:34 am

      My perspective is unique. I have three degrees in mathematics.
      I have made a career of writing computer programs and models for corporations and financial institutions.

      If you have taken elementary algebra and know basic spreadsheets, you can learn how I approach election fraud analysis.
      I suggest you read my book “Matrix of Deceit” and then: “1 in 77 Billion: 2016 Election Fraud”.

      This is NOT rocket science.

  10. Lee

    November 13, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I am also suspicious of Jill Stein’s vote total being so abysmally low considering the record-setting ballot access, fundraising, and media coverage Jill Stein received. I am trying to understand the numbers, but the calculations are above my head. Like others, I’d appreciate a written narrative explanation/analysis, if you have time to manage it. I feel this information should be shared. Thank you!

  11. Name

    November 15, 2016 at 5:05 am

    1/2 or slightly more of stray voters, on election day, realize they should vote less evil.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: