RSS

Wisconsin CVS: Clinton vs. Burke 2014 Governor

04 Dec

Richard Charnin
Dec.4, 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 Exit Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

As the Wisconsin recount proceeds, it is instructive to compare the 2016 election to the 2014 Governor race – especially in Milwaukee county.

In the 2014 WI Gov race, Walker won by 52.2-46.7%. It is commonly believed that Walker stole the election, mostly in Milwaukee County.

Burke won Milwaukee County by 62.8-36.1%, a 26.7% margin.
Burke won the City of Milwaukee by 76.1-22.4% (53.7%)
Walker won the Milwaukee suburbs by 52.9-46.1% (6.8%)

Trump won WI by 47.2-46.4%.
Clinton won Milwaukee County by 65.6-28.6% (37.0%).
Clinton won the City of Milwaukee by 76.6-18.4% (58.2%).
Clinton won the Milwaukee suburbs by 51.6-41.6 (10%).

This sheet compares Clinton to Burke (2014 Dem Gov race) in all WI counties. It is sorted by percentage gain in Clinton’s 2-party share vs. Burke.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=239416879

CLINTON GAINED OVER BURKE IN 25 LARGE, MOSTLY REPUBLICAN COUNTIES WITH 2,146,000 VOTES! In 2014, Walker won 18, Burke won 5 and 2 were nearly tied.

Clinton lost share in the other 47 counties with just 802,000 votes (5 of the 47 were won by Burke). What does this indicate, given that Walker stole the election from Burke?

Does it mean a) there was virtually no fraud (Hillary picked up votes stolen from Burke in counties) or b) there was fraud (Hillary picked up votes in 18 Republican counties, but lost votes in small Republican counties)

Although Clinton was unpopular and Burke well-liked, Clinton exceeeded Burke by 4.5% in the City of Milwaukee and 16.8% in the suburbs. Was the fraud in Clinton’s favor this time?

This is a Cumulative vote share/ graph analysis  for all 72 WI counties:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=0

In the CVS tables, the first group of columns is the reported precinct vote; set #2 is the votes sorted in ascending order by precinct size, #3 is the cumulative sum of the precinct votes from smallest to largest precincts, #4 is the cumulative vote shares based on #3.

One would normally expect the CVS graph lines to be parallel if there was little or no fraud or else diverge in case of fraud. Of course, county precinct demographics based is also a factor. The assumption that the county electorate is independent of precinct size.

WI reported votes by county (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/wisconsin/president

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 4, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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: