About Me

After having posting on various websites as “TruthIsAll” since 2002 (and getting banned in a few), I felt that it would be fun to create my own blog. I don’t expect that I will ban myself. And no one can accuse me of spamming.

This document contains links to my WEB/BLOG POSTS as well as to spreadsheets (data and models), discussion forums, interviews and articles by election activists.

After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.

I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.

In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets – and years later to Excel.

As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations.

I never imagined that years later I would be posting election analyses on the Internet. After the 2000 fiasco, I was motivated to develop a robust forecast model. In July 2004 I began posting weekly election projections based on state and national pre-election polls.

The corporate media and politicians avoid the subject of systemic election fraud like the plague. But unadjusted state and national exit polls have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The Democratic true share has consistently exceeded the official recorded share. I have written four books proving systemic election fraud.

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy. Of the 274 state presidential exit polls, 135 exceeded the margin of error (131 in favor of the Republicans). The probability is E-116. Just 14 of the 274 exit polls would be expected to exceed the margin of error. It is mathematical proof beyond any doubt of a conspiracy of systemic election fraud favoring the Republicans.

The 2004 Election Model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. His EV win probability was 98%.

Following the election, I posted exit poll analyses on various election forums which sparked heated debates and attracted hundreds of viewers. Since 2004, my focus has been on developing election models to estimate the True Vote in presidential and congressional elections.

In 2008, I exactly forecast Obama’s recorded vote (365 EV, 53% vote share). The Monte Carlo simulation indicated he had a 100% EV win probability. But the True Vote Model indicated that Obama had 420 EV and a 58% vote share, exactly matching the unadjusted exit polls.

In 2012, the Election Model recorded vote forecast was once again on the money (332 EV, 51%). His EV win probability was 100%. But the TVM indicated that Obama had 391 EV and 55%. The National Election Pool (six corporate media giants) decided not to exit poll in 19 states. The 31 unadjusted exit polls have not been released.

In 2016, I forecast the electoral vote exactly for the third time in a row. Trump  had 306 EV with a 98% win probability. But he had 351 EV in the True Vote.  The pre-election model was based on nine pre-election national polls using the Gallup voter affiliation poll. 

I mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate JFK – and cover it up. JFK Calc is a spreadsheet database of suspicious and unnatural witness deaths and other statistical anomalies. Many witnesses who were called to testify in four investigations died unnaturally. The probability is one in trillions – absolute mathematical proof of a conspiracy.  I wrote Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy



119 responses to “About Me

  1. Renee Kovacs

    August 11, 2011 at 4:26 am

    Will you be commenting on the Wisconsin recall results, and how they compare to your forecasts?

    • Richard Charnin

      August 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm

      I just did.

      • MMTP

        May 6, 2016 at 6:14 am

        Could you please tell me, as a mathematician…

        In Laramie WY Bernie was leading with 689 delegates to clinton’s 111. Surrogate ballots started rolling in (as you probably know surrogate ballots are not like absentee ballots, you must prove a legitimate reason to vote surrogate, ie military service, hospitalization, etc) and ultimately 620 surrogate ballots came in for Clinton, giving her the lead/win. What is the probability of this? I assume it is statistically impossible?

      • Richard Charnin

        May 6, 2016 at 9:45 am

        Yes, It is impossible.

      • scottabeer

        December 27, 2016 at 9:57 am

        Richard, My name is Scott Beer. I had moved from the Santa Cruz county, to Fresno. I made absolute sure that I registered as a voter as soon as possible. I checked on line and it hadn’t happened yet. I RE-REGISTERED and still. AGAIN and FINALLY. I received a post card confirming it. I attended Bernie’s Delegate “System of events here in Fresno/Visalia” and also Door Knocked, Phone banked, and was a Volunteer at his Rally. when voting day came, the polling location was minutes from my house. when I walked in i gave them my name. Nope, you’re not on here. I showed my drivers license to assure the spelling was right. “nope, I’m not sure what happened” so, I reached in my back pocket and produced my voter registration postcard. she looked and said “maybe you’re in the other binder” and turned around behind her, retrieving the second one on another table and Lo and behold, I was there. Why 2 binders? Why not produce them both together? Why did i have to provide proof? why did THAT change? is there a database for stories that we can tell providing we are willing to swear under oath?

      • Richard Charnin

        December 28, 2016 at 1:31 pm

        I do not have answers to your questions. As far as a database of stories, I do not know of any. Just google.

  2. MalleusMaleficarum

    November 4, 2011 at 6:45 am

    In addition to your excellent papers for mathematicians, please, write a down-to-earth textbook for – say, the ninth grade reading level – sans mathematics.

    • Rik Smoody

      November 13, 2015 at 5:02 pm

      Give the 9th graders a motivation to learn some math. Keep the math. Explanations or links to explanations would be adequate.

  3. davidgmills

    June 7, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Will I get banned here?

    • Richard Charnin

      June 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      How are you doing? Please comment often.

      • Anita Malchiodi Albedi

        June 26, 2016 at 4:23 pm

        Hey, Richard — here’s one that may suggest deeper irregularities that can’t be proved nor disproved. On May 7th, I went to the Fairfield (Solano County, CA) central post office around 3:34 p.m. and dropped my vote by mail ballot into the mail slot. The ballot only needed to travel three blocks to the county Elections Office. Last Monday, I just happened to discover that one can check with your local county elections office to see if your ballot was counted. My ballot, the website results repeatedly said, was “never received.” I’ve made several calls to the state and the county with promises of a call back — none have come. I’ve tried to leave an online complaint, the Solano County Elections website returned an error message on clicking “Send”. Nobody counts the complaints from people who say they mailed in their ballots and are told we didn’t receive them. Therefore, there’s no statistical data to be studied which might suggest whether ballots were indeed lost in the mail or if early return mail-in ballots were trashed. Indeed, so few people even know about the ability to check and see if your ballot was counted that there’s no likelihood that anyone handling early mail-in ballots might be caught engaged in such illegal activity. No cares that my right to have my vote counted has been denied and no one that I’ve talked with in the elections offices of either the state or the county seem to care that my situation be remedied. I remember stamping my ballot envelope and putting a return address label on it. It’s not come back to me. That day, I proudly announced to my Facebook friends that I’d mailed in my ballot. That coming week, my students applauded when I told them that I’d voted. Imagine my gut wrenching disappointment now. How many are there like me? We can not know. There’s a deep flaw in the vote-by-mail system. Where can I go to get my voice heard in the outcry and the lawsuits? The likelihood of my ballot having been lost is minute compared to the probability of it having been received but “tossed out”. Check the Solano County website. Enter my street address number as 1215, enter my birthday as 12/23/1952, enter my name

  4. Victor Provenzano

    November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Richard, your piece on Roper’s raw exit poll data from 1988 to 2008 is quite chilling. Yet it strikes me that a slight change in your argument concerning the nature of this data might significantly improve the chances that your statistical reasoning will be more widely entertained in the future. Given that “fraud” is a more or less precise legal term, instead of using the omnibus term “fraud” to explain the rather glaring exit poll discrepancy, one might, for instance, distinguish between the issues of the number of “uncounted votes,” the number of legally & illegally “suppressed votes” (to the degree to which they can be merely a subset of the “uncounted votes”), & the number of “stolen votes” (whether they might be stolen by electronic or non-electronic means). It seems to me that all of these various categories of votes do not fall unambiguously under the legal rubric of the term “fraud.” If your argument were refined to reflect these kinds of distinctions, it might enable it to finally have a good bit more of the impact that it seems to deserve.


    Victor Provenzano

    • Tony L

      November 10, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Interested in N Silver criticism. I prefer code in python or haskell or even
      shell script. OK for proprietary or closed, but like OPEN SOURCE. I am reading the Silver Book, covering predictions in many fields. Thanks, some
      do NOT use ‘spreadsheets’, Excel and some prefer STRICT functional programming like Haskell. Note: I am ‘not in politics’ and have no apparent conflict of interest. Preferably, standards of the ‘algorithms’
      should meet SSRN or even, but be ‘practical’ and not
      ‘arcane science.’

  5. Dylia

    November 18, 2012 at 2:18 am

    Richard, what a gem you are! Have you a comment on the recent letter released by Anonymous group as to the ORCA server disarmament on Election Day?

    • Richard Charnin

      November 18, 2012 at 4:27 am

      Thank you, Dylia,

      Yes, I believe they did it. I hope they provide proof.

  6. Martin Truther

    December 18, 2012 at 2:11 am

    I am extremely excited about your work. I know that communicating results of statistical explorations is difficult. Have you considered the possibility of an animation to dramatize the basic concepts, discrepancies and red-shifts? If we could distill it to an animation with punch like Ben Cohen’s animation re: military spending as oreo cookies, we’d have a good shot at making people aware of it.

    • Richard Charnin

      December 18, 2012 at 11:48 am


      I have not thought of animation, although I have thought of a Powerpoint presentation – but have not done it.
      I just looked at the Cookie animation. Very good, but it’s notmy style. After the new year, I will look at creating a visual.

  7. The MUSEman

    August 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Interesting website… I have a few questions:

    – Is there any example of an election which, when put through your analysis, would be considered “fair”?
    – In your opinion, would Voter ID, mandatory voting, elimination of early voting, extension of voting time for offshore military, elimination of same-day voter registration, or scheduling a “Voting Holiday” (eg: As in Greece, where everything is closed for 2 days except mandatory services and polling places) serve to help or hurt “fairness”?
    – To what effect does “voting machine tampering” affect the “red-state” bias, as technicians who maintain voting machines are typically Union, Democrat-leaning personnel?
    – Any gauge on how Liberals, Democrats, and/or Progressives view your model and analysis? I would think they would be screaming your results from every rooftop, and yet I found your site serendipitously through a Google search.

    Thanks for your work, and regards,

    • Richard Charnin

      August 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      1. Elections in Oregon and Washington state. Oregon has mandatory random county hand recounts. I document everything in my two books on Election Fraud.

      2. These would generally have a negative effect in limiting the voter turnout. So-called voter fraud is virtually non-existent. Check the statistical studies. Read “The Myth of Voter Fraud” by Lorraine Minnite. Of course there are a handful of voters who have committed fraud – like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

      3. “Voting machine tampering” is systemic in all states, red and blue. Red states to pad the popular vote, Blue states to pick up electoral votes. Voting machines are pre-programmed by right wing companies. Election officials and technicians are not typically union Democrats, they are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. In any case, technicians basically just administer the machine set-up, but are not programmers. Voting machine manufacturing personnel do the coding and make any required last-minute”patches” – like in Ohio.

      4. Activists who are interested in a solid, unbiased mathematical analysis appreciate the models although very few actually understand the details and actually run them. If you would care to do so, check out the models linked from by blog. They are google doc spreadsheets and are public. Some allow for user input.

      I have come to the conclusion that we do not have a functioning democracy. Both parties are in collusion to perpetuate the myth of a viable, fair, open election process. The Democrats would win every election if they were fair, given the growth in minority voters. But they let the GOP win elections to keep the myth of a 50/50 electorate alive. That’s why they do not call for verifiable voting.

      The National Election Pool eliminated exit polls in 19 states in the last election. That why I probably will no longer forecast or calculate the True Vote in future elections. Systemic election fraud has been proven mathematically.

      My forecasting track record has been right on target. The True Vote Model matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004. It exactly forecast Obama’s 2008 recorded popular and electoral vote (365) and 2012 (332). Of course, his True Vote was much higher in both elections. The True Vote Model exactly matched his 58.0% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate in 2008. In 2012, his True Vote was 55%. The NEP conducted just 31 state presidential exit polls in 2012. None have been released. But we need 50 state polls to compare the weighted average exit poll share to the True Vote Model.

      Thanks for your interest.

  8. N. S.

    July 16, 2014 at 7:14 am

    I love your work and have been reading it extensively, and we are in the middle of a long criminal investigation here in Hidalgo County, Texas that I am afraid isn’t going to get to the bottom of all this.

    Who specializes in looking at ES&S irregularities?

    Or voting data?

    I have a bunch of audit log files, and other materials, and I suspect ballot stuffing has occurred. And continues to occur. The best example I can find is in 2008.

    Where is the proper venue to discuss that?

    Particularly in the 8PTXHIDA and 8PTXHIDASUM spread sheets you will notice some races are missing the COUNTY1 designation…

    And further, Democrat turnout it 645%.

    There appears to be about 601 “extra” votes.

    Any thoughts?

  9. Lori Stacey

    November 7, 2014 at 1:10 am

    I am desperately looking for someone that can do a mathematical analysis on my statewide race and 2 others. There was massive voter suppression tricks by our state establishment Republican thugs, a county auditor in our largest county that was even RECREATING ballots spit out of the scanners for ridiculous, obviously unlawful reasons and all kinds of corruption here.

    I cannot accept these numbers that they did end up throwing us as they feel literally UNBELIEVABLE! All the precinct numbers are still up on website. Can you or someone you know help??? This was my 2nd run for Secretary of State in South Dakota and I will not swallow with 100% of our ballots going through scanners that I could possibly have gotten HALF the votes as 4 years ago. It defies all logic and my platform is reform, going back to hand-counting, opening up ballot access, bringing back recalls, etc.

    Here is a link to results:
    We were great 3rd party and Independent candidates for SOS, Governor and US Senate. Please help if you can. I would be forever grateful and hopefully get some peace with this and some much-needed sleep.

  10. Dave Kesselring

    November 18, 2014 at 9:12 am

    As you are probably aware, time is almost always limited. If I take hours reading this blog will I find possibilities of proving voting machine fraud in my county? Has it been proven successfully through mathematics? If it has been proven, has anything positive come out of that? Thanks.

    • Richard Charnin

      November 18, 2014 at 7:27 pm

      I assume you mean Election Fraud committed by election officials, not Voting fraud by voters which is virtually non-existent.

      My analyses proving election fraud to a virtual mathematical certainty is based on national and state exit poll and recorded vote data. That’s because the National Election Pool (six media giants who fund the exit pollsters) won’t release raw precinct exit poll data.

      The only time pure, unadjusted exit poll data of individual precincts was made available was in the Ohio 2004 presidential election. Analysis of the exit poll discrepancies resulted in a high probability that the vote counts were fraudulent.

      The NEP stopped presidential exit polling in 19 states in 2012.

      The exit pollsters always adjust the unadjusted exit poll data in order to force a match to the recorded vote.
      They do this even if the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

      The NEP wants the voting public to never consider Election Fraud.
      The presumption is that it does not exist.
      But they want us to consider voter fraud, which is non-existent.
      Dosen’t make any sense, does it?

  11. Dave Kesselring

    November 18, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    Has anybody just taken a precinct or two and gone door to door to get a count to compare to the government’s version?

  12. Dave

    December 17, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    The more I get into this analysis, the more I’m convinced that something is indeed fishy. However, has anything been done to examine the nature of these large wards and what else, if anything, can explain the slant on these curves? Turnout is one example. If GOP recruiting is more effective then one would expect more votes in these wards. I went through your spreadsheets and can see what you are doing so I understand that part. What I’m having trouble with is the expectation that the lines would be parallel? I would expect the lines to jump around more than they are, and perhaps trend in one direction or the other, but you are clearly hitting a point where these lines go straight, and in opposite directions; clearly indicating something is amiss. Good work Richard.

    • Richard Charnin

      December 20, 2014 at 6:41 pm


      Thanks. Parallel lines could also indicate that the fraud is constant across all precincts. Please post your comment as a reply to the relevant post.

  13. Ramon F Herrera

    January 2, 2015 at 8:58 am


    I have a suggestion for you. Send your study to Rachel Maddow with the following conclusion:

    “It is mathematical proof beyond any doubt of a conspiracy of systemic election fraud favoring the Republicans”

    I predict that she will become ecstatic. After she recovers, you tell her:

    “Those exact same calculations show, beyond any doubt, that JFK died as a result of a conspiracy. If you believe one, you must accept the other”.

  14. Richard Charnin

    January 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Hahaha. Why don’t you send it to her?

  15. Jeff

    April 13, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Have you analyzed 2014 IL gubernatorial? Democratic candidate Quinn was leading in pre-election polls. Quinn had outperformed polls his entire career. Yet lost per election totals by 5%.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 15, 2015 at 7:58 am

      No, but I will if I can get state precinct totals for Cum. Vote Share analysis.

      • sean

        July 30, 2015 at 12:15 am

        Dear Mr. Charnin,

        The Illinois State Board of Elections has published precinct level data on the results of the 2014 general election. As Jeff mentioned the Illinois Governor’s race was the one in which incumbent Pat Quinn who was leading in the pre-election polls and tied in the exit polls, supposedly lost by over 4% once the machine totals were counted. The link for the precinct-data is

        Do you think it will be possible to to the cumulative vote share analysis on this race?


      • Richard Charnin

        July 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm

        I cannot work with the data in csv format.
        Send me an excel version.


      • Richard Charnin

        July 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm


        I cannot work with the data as it is formatted.
        I need the data in spreadsheet format.

  16. sean

    July 30, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    Dear Mr. Charnin,

    I have an excel file as requested. Where can I email it to you?

    my email is


  17. sean

    July 30, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    Or you can download it yourself at this website (click on the tab for governor and download)

    • Richard Charnin

      July 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm

      Ok, I have the file. I will get back to you with a link to the CVS.

    • Richard Charnin

      July 31, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      Ok, I just posted the analysis.

      • seanvinck

        July 31, 2015 at 4:50 pm

        Dear Sir, Thanks very much.

        You know I took a screen shot of the initial exit poll posted online on election night, which was subsequently altered. If you want i can send to you.

        What is the best addresS?

      • Richard Charnin

        July 31, 2015 at 8:34 pm


        Any comments on the analysis?
        I have included a True Vote Model analysis to the spreadsheet/post.

        It’s further confirmation that the election was likely stolen.
        We have pre-election polls, exit polls, Cum vote shares and the True Vote Model.
        I posted the links to the analysis on Facebook.
        My email is


  18. seems

    November 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    hi Richard….followed you for a long time at DU and RI …miss you…just heard you on Thom Hartman

  19. Jared Diamond

    March 24, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Hi there Richard, ran into your articles, love your work. I was wondering if you include early ballots in your “final recorded results”, I would assume a mathematician like you would, but I just want to know for sure if what you’re saying is accurate. (especially ’cause HRC gets far more from early ballots than Bernie. Also, is there a way to try to suppress this stuff. Could one try to contact local offices to use more paper/hand out ballots?

    • Richard Charnin

      March 24, 2016 at 10:03 pm

      The final recorded results are all the recorded votes.
      Why would I not include them?
      Yes, Hillary got more early ballots than Bernie. They are still suspect, right?

  20. Cindy

    April 16, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Richard, I have read all your posts on the 2016 primary very carefully multiple times and I watched an interview with you online. I am 100% convinced you are right and the election is being stolen from Bernie. I would like to broadcast your results more widely. I write for a living and I could potentially help you make your message more “digestible” for a general audience. Can you please contact me at the private email I submitted with this message?

    Also, can you please explain in detail exactly where and how you obtain the UNadjusted polling numbers. I want to look at this in more detail and follow it for the New York primary.

    Could you also point to other people and other work that show similar patterns, especially where HRC is involved. I’m mostly interested in the 2016 primary but also in her 2008 run against Obama and potentially her senate runs in N.Y. Were there any trends in 2008 to show that voter machine fraud kicked in after a certain point or was it there from the beginning? Was there an increase in the degree of voter machine fraud as the race unfolded?

    We only have a narrow window of time to prevent this election from being stolen but we need to try! We also all need to convince Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders, and Jeff Weaver to have a news conference or otherwise publicly draw attention to this issue… BEFORE the New York primary. We need Bernie to demand a recount of New York, regardless of the outcome, so he receives the pledged delegates he so rightfully deserves!

    Thank you for your very important work!

    • Richard Charnin

      April 17, 2016 at 1:30 am

      The “unadjusted” exit poll numbers may have already been adjusted as of 8pm closing. They could very well have been adjusted prior to that in which case Bernie did even better. I use the exit polls posted by Ted Soares in As shown in the tables in my blog posts, the polls were screenshots from CNN.

      I suggest you read my posts on the 2008 primary, in which Clinton ran against Obama. I note anomalies. In particular, Operation Chaos and the exit poll discrepancies.


      • Cindy

        April 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

        Thank you for your response Richard! I’m a tad confused. I’m assuming that the exit poll data on and CNN come from the same data source… is this true? In so, I’m assuming you captured screen shots from both? Also, did you watch the exit poll data throughout the day… did you plot this on a graph, and if so, did you see any sudden/abrupt changes in trajectory?

        I have shown many people your blog posts…. the problem is people have trouble understanding the math and the complexities of this topic. I think we need to find a way to report on your research in a more digestible way and then link to the more complicated analyses for those who want to see the details…. to zero in on things that everyone can understand… like the fact that the changes in the late day exit polls and the “adjusted” exit polls all favor HRC… not even once do they favor Bernie Sanders.

        I am livid that NO ONE is reporting on this! I have contacted the Young Turks, Democracy Now, and other alternative media in hopes they cover it. Democracy Now did run a story about voter machine fraud in late Feb of this year but it was not specifically about this primary nor did it provide the specific proof you are providing:

        I think they should follow up with you. Would you be willing to be interviewed? Do you know the fellows they interviewed on this subject?

        I’m thinking about contacting the BBC and other European media to see if they’ll cover it… we need this picked up by AP! If the word of this really got out there, and more people understood that this is REAL evidence, and that someone is WATCHING this unfold and keeping track of it… I think maybe the rigging would cease or least be curtailed…. and maybe more of the so called “super” delegates would vote for Bernie.

        In my opinion, the DNC is committing political suicide by rigging voting machines (or not correcting this) and allowing all the other election fraud to run rampant, like the registration issues with people being dropped from the rolls or their party affiliations switched without their knowledge so they are no longer eligible to vote in the primary.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 17, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      I told you where I got the exit poll numbers from. My message is very digestible – if one is truly interested in knowing the truth. You have my blog and my books. No offense, but I do not collaborate with anyone. You are free to show any and all of my work to TYT. Tell them to buy my books. I appreciate your support.

      • Cindy

        April 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

        Richard, while I partially agree with you, I do not completely agree. Recently, as just one example, I attempted to show your blog posts to a very serious Bernie supporter (someone who has put in hundreds of hours) and she was just too overwhelmed to follow it completely… and too anxious to get back to phone banking and doing other things that seem more obvious to her. What you are presenting is NOT obvious to most people. It must be studied… the nuances of what you are saying must be teased out of some of the posts you have made… what may seem obvious to you will not seem obvious to most. Keep in mind that most people do not have a math background or even a science background.

        I actually write for a living (scientist by training) so I do know something about about making a complicated topic less complicated/more digestible for a general audience. Most people will only “dig deeper” if they are strongly compelled to do so by a straightforward message that really hooks them. I would still like to help with that, as time permits, if you should become interested. And yes… I have shared links to your posts many places but a simplified summary of what you are finding is what is needed I think for your message to really break through to a large number of people…. for people to truly get it! To many, “math” seems like “hocus pocus” but I think with some effort, a simplified summary of the key elements of your work could dispel that.

        If someone from the Bernie campaign contacted you, would you be willing to talk with them one on one about your findings? What about one of the high profile supporters of Bernie? This would help a lot I think. For this to be taken seriously and become known to a significant percentage of those voting in this primary, I think we need the Bernie campaign and or one or more of their high profile supporters talking about it…. and we need a simplified summary to point to when they do.. which of course can contain links to your posts and books for more detail.

        I am outraged by what is happening and I commend you for the work you are doing… I just want a lot more people to know about it and really get that it is STRONG evidence of voter machine fraud.

  21. Cindy

    April 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Richard I have another important question… I read articles like this all the time:

    Regarding this statement from the above article, “Projecting who will win the Latino vote, or even who has won it according to results versus exit polling, has been one of the most contentious issues this Democratic election cycle. In an under-covered story, Bernie Sanders won the Latino vote in Illinois – narrowly according to exit polls, more decisively if majority Latina and Latino wards in Chicago and nearby suburbs are indicative. NBC, however, had projected a much larger thirty-four point win for Sanders with Latinos in Illinois. In Florida, which voted the same day, NBC projected just a five point loss with hispanic voters for Sanders; he lost by thirty-six according to exit polling.”

    Do you you think the discrepancies could be due to the exit polling in question being ADJUSTED in Illinois, and Florida? So, Bernie actually won much more of the Latino vote than the adjusted exit polls, i.e. “adjusted” results, i.e. voter machine rigging, showed?

  22. Richard Charnin

    April 17, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Exit polls are always adjusted in favor of the establishment candidate. Bernie is being cheated left and right.

  23. rferrisx

    April 21, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    My comment is that the often heard argument that Bernie does not win the vote of people of color is a well orchestrated lie perpetrated by the media throughout the election. I suspect the votes of people of color in general and those votes of people of color for Bernie specifically are being suppressed. From the NYT data, I noted that Bernie won 37% in NYC but 48% in the rest of NY and the argument I heard was that upstate voted for Bernie because they are more white. Somehow, I just think such arguments are B.S.

  24. Shasta

    April 27, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Hi Richard. Thanks for your work. I’ve read some of your posts regarding the current primary election, and I am interested in finding out what you hope to gain from it. I read through the comments, and noticed that a few people here asked for a summary describing your work in less technical terms. I am curious as to why you are so opposed to providing this? It makes sense, of course, if you are doing this research solely for your own enjoyment and do not hope to affect change, but if you do want change I am having a hard time understanding your resistance.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 27, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Anyone interested in my analysis can go to my blog and read my book.
      I get a lot of queries. I have answered as many as possible.
      Some questions are from those who want to waste my time.

      • Shasta

        April 27, 2016 at 12:03 pm

        I see. I’m curious, have you read this description from the anonymous website that describes a possible strategy by the hc campaign? Not sure if it affects your numbers, or if it is relevant to a sole focused on exit polls. The article states that 70% of the voters were by early ballot. I’m not sure if they mean that at the end of the day 70% of the final count ended up being early-voters because there was so much voter suppression on election day and few of those in-person voters were counted because they gave up after hours of waitin. That might give some clue as to why the figures changed on the exit polls. If they tally in the early-votes to make it match the final count it could account for the huge shift. Either way, forcing a match like that and labeling it that way is inappropriate and misleading.

        Also, I bet you’d get a lot fewer questions if there was a summary that was easier to understand! 😉

  25. Ron Kovin

    April 28, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Thanks for the research and helpful information on red flags for a possible election fraud.

    This is all very compelling, and it rings true, but being who I am – I want more.

    Do you know of other mathmaticians or statisticians who come to the same conclusions or rather independently verify your results. You might very well be right, but in this case there needs to be strength in numbers.

    Please list other sources. You can’t be the only one or I fear there won’t be enough momentum. Thanks.

  26. Patric Steele

    April 29, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Richard you are a champion for our democracy.I saw your interview on Sane Progressive. I understand what you explained. I live in California and wish to monitor exit polls (if they end up having them). In the interview you said you monitored some exit polls at 9pm when they were at 70% of votes reporting. Were the exit poll numbers on your chart on this blog(for the 22 states) taken at 70% votes reporting as well ? Where should I go or watch when these numbers are reported so I can catch them before they are adjusted ? (since you mentioned the companies hired by the mainstream media adjust them) Also,what is the maximum possible percentage of change between the point of 70% of votes reporting and 100% of votes reporting ? I will be sure to pass this along. Keep up the good fight! Much Thanks.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 29, 2016 at 10:51 pm

      I don’t have an answer for you.

      • Patric Steele

        April 30, 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Ok. Good news. An exit poll chart similar to yours was briefly shown and discussed on the Redacted Tonight Show last night on the RT channel.It should be posted on the RT America website to watch by now under the “shows” category. The Word is starting to get out.

  27. Cindy

    May 6, 2016 at 1:47 am

    Richard, could you please contact me at the email I am using to submit this message. Cindy

  28. Christi Flynn

    June 9, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Hi. I am a new visitor; happened upon your blog when i was looking into the Arnebeck ES&S lawsuit and read your (I believe) response to a Nation writer. I was amazed to see you dedicated a portion of your site to JFK. Synchronicity is a constant in my life, and the following will explain that comment. My Democrat Party cognitive dissonance glass bubble was shattered in 2015, following two years of intermittent chips and crackles, One of the most significant cracks was my epiphany about JFK, and my resulting sorrow. I was born in 1962; obviously not able to experience him in the years leading to his election or see in real time the televised parade and subsequent news reports. As a tail-end baby boomer I DID learn much about him in my childhood, just as child born in 2000 would know of 9/11. However, JFK was one influence in shaping my values as Democrat, due to my mother’s comments about him; it was clear she admired and respected him, and this is notable because in the years since she has not been passionate about politics. During my self-rehabilitation of my “disability” in knowledge of history.I found on YouTube the edited speech named “The speech that got Kennedy killed”. That discovery enabled me to start connecting the dots of this nation’s chronic threat posed by the wealthiest elite, as their zeal for power and wealth was not vanquished when “We, The People” claimed independence from the Crown and Britain’s debt to the same wealthy elite. It seems to me Kennedy, who, like Obama, was inaugurated with strong convictions on patriotism, leadership, and a value system he hoped to tap on behalf of his employers (the citizens). He soon discovered the very real, internal threats to the nation and its Constitution. With trust in Johnson and in government agencies, he decided to act. He announced his intention to retreat from Vietnam and the CIA was going to be weakened. Later I was stunned to learn Allen Dulles was a member of the deceitful Warren Commission and Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Sr. and George Jr. were political players. I viewed the Zapruder film, another documentary, and, for good measure, Stone’s movie for a second time. I was overwhelmed to understand JFK was assassinated by the “real” government, most with ties in Texas. First I grieved and then I became angry. I was fixated on the idea these people would turn on him. I wanted all living “politicians” involved with government, and with alternate goals, charged, investigated, and brought to justice. They, and their hidden agendas, have continued to act with impunity (MLK, Jr. Bobby?) by lying to start wars, giving our tax dollars to private military interests, manipulating campaign financing, changing regulations to make friends and family rich, restricting our freedoms, and spying on U.S. citizens. But this is what enrages me: We KNOW it now, and they know we know it. We have done nothing and it seems they have been absolved, thus allowing them to increase their power, corrupt the government, and create a nation that is anathematical to its Constitution. I often ask myself how we can become employers of the government, as intended by the Constitution. I believe we must start with living criminals beginning in the JFK era and proceed forward from there.
    Thank you for providing a forum.

  29. Mark Lokensgard

    June 12, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Dear Mr. Charnin, I am an academic who researches cultural bias and representations of State Crimes Against Democracy. I have seen references to your blog by commenters on the NYT site and also just saw an article in The Nation attacking the idea of discrepancies between exit polls and voting results: (This article names your blog.) I think it would be very interesting for you to comment about this article. I wonder if any trained mathematicians/statisticians from outside the US might be willing to comment on the Nation’s article and your efforts as well, the reason being that if Americans have a cultural bias against discussing election irregularities, someone from outside could be free of such a bias, free of accusations of bias toward any particular political party, and also free of fear of any potential retaliation for doing so.

    • Richard Charnin

      June 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm

      I commented on Holland’s original screed in this blog post:
      Bob Fitrakis commented:

      This post from Beth Clarkson, PhD, is in response to Holland’s screed at
      “Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless Voters have good reason to lack confidence in our election systems. But claims of widespread fraud aren’t going to fix anything.”
      Sadly, this author does not understand the math well enough to realize that, despite the protests of the professional pollster interviewed, claims of widespread fraud are not baseless. Exit poll results for the democratic presidential primary provide not one but two solid pieces of evidence in the case for widespread election fraud.

      We have a voting system, as he acknowledges, that gives us no cause for confidence that our voting results are accurately assessed. Despite this, he claims that there is no cause for concern. I disagree as I find multiple independent paths of analyses give evidence that consistently points to massive widespread election fraud across our country.

      My specialty is statistics and I’ve pulled down publicly available data independently, analyzed it myself, and corroborated analyses which points to massive widespread election fraud. Mr. Holland disparages the mathematical work of Richard Charnin*, but I have not found an error in any of the analyses of his that I have repeated.

      As you can see, Holland was thoroughly exposed as a no-nothing amateur shill by three professionals..
      There is no need to waste any more time on him.

      I suggest you google his background and compare it to mine.
      I have three degrees in mathematics. What are his degrees in?
      I have written two books on election Fraud. How many has he written?
      I have a blog devoted to election fraud where you can view hundreds of my analytical posts. What is Holland’s blog about?
      I have been proving election fraud since 2004. What has he done?

      This is my body of work. Where is his?

      He calls me a JFK Conspiracy Theorist. He is vermin.


  30. Mark Lokensgard

    June 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Thank you for these links. I am not a trained mathematician or statistician, so it is difficult for me to judge these arguments, but I certainly had my attention drawn to some of the rhetorical jumps and frayed seams in logic in Holland’s article. And I wish the press would have the courage to compare our elections to elections in other countries for transparency, as Bob Fitrakis does. I wonder if you can suggest to me any resources you know of in terms of explanations for why the Democrats in particular do not (as far as I know) make public calls for real election reform, with the exception of voter registration, as in Oregon. In the particular case of Sanders’s positions, many of them are backed by a majority of Americans, and so Democrats would presumably have a lot to gain. Perhaps this could be explained, in part, of the fear of having the “conspiracy theorist” label thrown at the party elites. In any case, thank you for your work and your willingness to reply to me. Best, Mark

  31. Stan Anderson

    July 3, 2016 at 4:04 am

    Richard, Would you please provide a clear, simple description of Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis? If it can be done one paragraph would be great. Thank you for your important contributions.

  32. John Kesich

    July 5, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Have you taken a look at the exit polls vs election results in Spain, or plan to do so?

  33. Charles deGalled

    August 9, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Hello Richard,

    Something to keep in mind, and I’d love to discuss this in private, because for 16 years this lie has kept any possible 3rd Party from Rising and that needs to end NOW…
    In 2000, Nader’s Florida votes weren’t what kept Al Gore from winning the Presidency.
    He conceded not “for the good of the country” but because Republicans had proof of his team stealing PENNSYLVANIA and another swing state.
    They threatened to expose him, and reluctant to let the populace know what he had done, and thereby tarnishing his reputation forever ( and possibly going to JAIL). He walked away.

    And for 16 years -” What, you want another Nader?!” has been the rallying cry to keep the masses in line.

  34. Robbie Jena

    August 14, 2016 at 11:56 am

    Besides election results and great projections, …Have you done any calculations on USA Economy verses China and Asia growth. Common sense says, our Middle class is disappearing? Thank you.

    • Richard Charnin

      August 14, 2016 at 12:19 pm

      You said it all. Common sense shows the middle class is being squeezed.
      Experts have done the numbers. I cannot add anything more to that.

  35. Michael Freed

    August 25, 2016 at 12:20 am

    Hi Mr. Charnin. This is another valuable resource in the battle for truth. But I have to ask: would you be interested in branching out? What I mean is there is more to reclaiming science than the JFK assassination and election fraud. What about the scientists getting fired for reporting on the truth of all the various Monsanto products? Even CANADIAN scientists got their offices raided and fired!
    The reason(s) I ask are many – basically I’m looking for an ally in the battle against the forces behind these manipulations as a whole. I think that all of these individual battles are valid: however I also see the bigger picture. John Judge (look up his many talks on YouTube) had what to me sounds like the best grasp of the overview: these things can all fall under the umbrella of being caused by people at the top who have an agenda, and that agenda requires disenfranchising “We the people”. You can’t have the kind of control they want with us free. As a result, we can never be free so long as we allow them to continue in power.
    Makes sense, I know. But it’s hard to get people who can maintain that overview without continually getting lost in the details. Take any anti-group’s cause. Does it make sense to battle each separate pipeline, Monsanto product, instance of voting fraud, each instance of “Civil Forfeiture” (as if there were anything civil about being held up by the police at gunpoint as having them threaten your kids!) the 1%, the bank bailouts… who do you know who has the time, energy & money to protest each of these things out of existence?
    I don’t know what’s in the formula used for fracking, but I’m fairly certain that if I put any of them into your water causing you harm, I’d get jail time. Remind me again why legally or morally corporations get away with this on a major scale?
    If we can undermine just this one culturally acceptable premise, remove the justification for allowing corporations to do any of these things, ALL their pollutants cease to be put into oiur air, water and food. I HAVE a way to do just that, undermine it. Why is this important? Well, unless you think we can continue to feed a growing population with less food and fresh water, it’s important. And as far as where to find the money to clean up what’s already there, I think we can find some quite easily. After all, without the possibility of lobbying to be allowed to pollute, the money being spent here will immediately free up. Please let me know what you think. 😉

    • Richard Charnin

      August 25, 2016 at 12:33 am

      Thanks but right now, I am focusing on the election.

      • David Hammond

        September 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm

        Hi Richard, big fan of your work. My local paper printed this article disputing your conclusions about the WI recall election — only one in history where the politician being recalled did not lose. He’s disputing your findings because he says the exit poll takers never accounted for a broad cross-section of the population and that the most common exit poll respondents are young people. Therefore, he says, the results are skewed. Aside from asking his source for this, do you have anything you can add? I’m planning to write a letter to the paper soon and would really appreciate any input:
        Thank you.

      • Richard Charnin

        September 6, 2016 at 12:00 am

        Review my posts on the topic.
        The analysis speaks for itself.
        Professional exit pollsters know how to design a representative sample.
        That is what they are paid for.
        The critic you are quoting is extremely naive.
        I would not waste any time with him. His logic is skewed.

        Just send him this link and challenge him to refute each of these posts – and back up his naive statements with evidence.


        2016 WI Supreme Court
        WI and FL governor: adjusting the exit poll Party-ID mix
        WI 2014 Governor True Vote Analysis
        WI 2014 Governor election fraud: cumulative precinct vote shares
        Four Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

        Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size
        Probability of Mixed Precinct/Ward Vote Discrepancies: Optical Scanners & Touch Screens
        Walker Recall True Vote Database Model: County, Municipal and Unit Ward
        True Vote Model Analysis: Walker Recall
        Walker Recall True Vote Model: Implausible Vote Shares required to Match the Recorded Vote
        Walker Recall: The Exit Pollster’s MO Never Changes
        Walker Recall: The Adjusted Final Exit Poll Was Forced to Match an Unlikely Recorded Vote

        Did the GOP Steal the Wisconsin Recall Elections? A True Vote Analysis
        Recall Elections: Exit Poll, Recorded and True Vote Comparison
        Will the Wisconsin Democratic Recall Elections Be Stolen? A True Vote Analysis
        Wisconsin Recall Election Projections
        The Walker Recall: Is the Past Prologue?

        2010-2011 Wisconsin: Senate, Governor, Supreme Court and Recall Elections
        2011 Wisconsin Recalls: Exit Polls and the True Vote Model
        2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court: True Vote Analysis
        Wisconsin Supreme Court County Vote Analysis
        WI 2011 Supreme Court: Cumulative Vote Shares Confirm the Stolen Election
        WI 2010 True Vote and Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Feingold won

  36. John Kesich

    October 22, 2016 at 7:12 am

    In this video,, Jimmy Dore discusses how applicable to the current election the Malcolm X quote, “If Johnson had been running all by himself, he would not have been acceptable to anyone…” is.

    While the 10/20/16 2-way vs 4-way tracking polls at

    .not sure………5….11

    reveal the surprising – at least for me – phenomena that despite having “other” and “not sure” options, simply adding Johnson and Stein’s names cuts into those who say they’ll vote for Clinton.

    These things lead me to wonder what a poll with the choices Clinton, other and not sure would look like; as well as the findings of any research into the effect of adding possible responses to polls.


    November 18, 2016 at 2:22 am

    Thank you for your work. I’ve watched several of your appearances with Debbie Lusignan on the Sane Progressive. In the last one you spoke of the JFK study and mentioned the witnesses who had ended up dead. I’ve been hearing a similar thing with the clintons and the strange number of accidents and suicides of those close to them. Have you any opinion about this? There’s a video I believe called The Clinton Body Count which lists these deaths and the mere number seems odd to me I’m wondering just what are the odds of such a number.

    Thanks again for your important work sir, all the best

  38. Chris Kinder

    November 26, 2016 at 4:33 am

    What is your assessment of the work of Greg Palast and Jonathan Simon on voter suppression and stolen elections?

  39. Don Daniels

    November 26, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Richard. I would like to see a scatter graph of all the Hillary shift states in the primary, focused on how many percent over what was needed to get the next delegate the vote shift was. Most states were proportional on the delegates, and if there is a cluster just above the threshold to get the next delegate it would indicate deliberate action, where true results should be pretty evenly distributed.

    • Don Daniels

      November 26, 2016 at 10:49 am

      Check even the states Bernie won to see if they gave him one less delegate than he deserved.

  40. Stephen Dreher

    September 7, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Mr. Charnin. I just discovered your blog and am digging into the JFK material. Do you know of any rebuttals or analyses of the claims by “debunker” David Perry?

  41. Dan Harrell

    November 6, 2017 at 9:17 pm

    So interested in your work. Thanks!! Has anyone done any statistical analysis on the Clinton associated violent deaths? What are
    The odds of 100+ Personal or political enemies dying violent deaths? Could this be solved
    Using actuarial tables?

    • Richard Charnin

      November 11, 2017 at 3:57 pm

      Yes, but I won’t touch that. Hint: You need an approximate N, the number of Clinton associates; the number n of unnatural deaths; the time period T in years and R, the weighted average mortality rate.

  42. Jason Hausman

    December 28, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Just the mere fact that you claim 77 billion to 1 as the odds that Trump did not win the popular vote is evidence of your deceit. You may be claiming that the odds of the popular vote being exactly correct are 77 billion to 1, but that is something very different. That you are attempting to conflate these two things is testament to your dishonesty.

    • Richard Charnin

      December 28, 2017 at 10:50 pm

      First, you should learn how to read. I should not waste any time with you. My book ’77 Billion to One’ refers to the odds that Hillary rigged the primaries against Sanders. Eleven of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders. Do the math.

    • Richard Charnin

      December 30, 2017 at 7:21 pm

      I never said that. The 77 billion to one odds are the odds that the Democratic primary was rigged for Clinton.

  43. Phil Mennitti

    December 30, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    Hi Rich,
    Your work on Roy Moore was a Reddit topic yesterday.
    I’m curious if you have ever calculated the lottery and/or PowerBall Jackpot to see if it is a scam, or if the government is skimming?

    • Richard Charnin

      December 31, 2017 at 1:20 am


      • John Kesich

        December 31, 2017 at 10:32 am

        Mr Charnin,

        I recently posted a comment on your blog. I’m almost certain it posted but it is definitely gone now. My attempt to post the version below was met with, “Sorry, this comment could not be posted.”

        Are you censoring this? Have I been banned from your blog? If so, please have the decency to explain why.

        Thank you.

        John Kesich

        ~~~ rejected comment Your analysis of the Jones/Moore AL 2016 Senate race seems to ignore the fact that Moore has been accused of pedophilia. Surely, the fact that he was banned from a mall must have given some voters pause; at least abstaining if not voting for Jones.

        Your methodology predicts trends – it assumes that the two Democrats are similar enough and the two Republicans are similar enough to stand in for each other. Surely you don’t claim it is infallible and must recognize that it’s prediction will sometimes be outweighed by the specifics of the races.

        Two other cases where the specifics overwhelm the underlying trend come to mind.

        When I lived in Pennsylvania, the House incumbent in a neighboring district lost a won race because his girl friend called 911 from her bathroom where she’d locked herself in because he assaulted and was threatening to kill her.

        I’m sure that running your analysis on the 1972 McGovern/Nixon race would “reveal” massive fraud. Are you claiming there was?

        The fictional “Dirty Harry” Callahan famously said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Are you pushing your methodology beyond it’s limitations?

        On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Richard Charnin’s Blog wrote:

        > Richard Charnin commented: “No.” >

      • Richard Charnin

        December 31, 2017 at 2:18 pm

        I already commented. You are wrong about my methodology. You had better look at it more closely. I will not try to educate you here.

      • John Kesich

        January 1, 2018 at 7:12 am

        Scrolling back through your blog just now, I do not see my original comment, nor a response from you that looks like it addressed it. What’s more, I did not receive an email notification of your response despite having notifications for all recent posts in the blog; including the racist comment from Tim ODONNELL (his bizarre capitalization), which you removed.

        As I mentioned, I was not able to post using the button on your blog; that problem seems to have been fixed.

        Can you please repost your original response.

        Is “Matrix of Deceit” the best source for understanding the True Vote model, or is there another explanation better for the layman, perhaps at TruthIsAll?

        Have you done an analysis of the McGovern/Nixon election? If so, is it on line?

        Thank you.

      • Richard Charnin

        January 2, 2018 at 11:16 am

        I do analysis based on numerical data. The Moore accusations are not data. Read my analysis:

        My limitations? Do you know anyone in the universe who has forecast the electoral votes exactly in the last three elections? I did.

        Don’t bother to reply until you study my work.

  44. Richard Charnin

    January 2, 2018 at 11:08 am

    • John Kesich

      January 2, 2018 at 6:51 pm

      Thank you.

  45. John Kesich

    January 5, 2018 at 9:06 pm

    What I haven’t seen anyone address about the 2016 election is, what did Sanders supporters end up doing?

    Have you considered this? And do you see any way of teasing a reasonable guess out of the available data?

  46. Buddy Silver

    February 16, 2018 at 8:50 am


    “After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics”

    I need your email address to send you a large query on Mathematics.


  47. John Kesich

    April 3, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    Are you analyzing the Democratic primary in IL-3 (Newman v Lipinski)?

    • Richard Charnin

      April 4, 2018 at 7:08 am


      • John Kesich

        April 4, 2018 at 9:30 am

        Thank you. I am rather curious as to why you don’t think this election isn’t worth looking at, but if you were going to explain I expect you would already have done so; too bad. Thanks again.

  48. Internet Privacy Advocate

    February 21, 2019 at 10:58 am

    Here’s one for you: What is 5^4.8 ? Is it possible? How should one think about it? I’m positive it has to be a number between 5^4 and 5^5. The calculator gives approx 2,265.

    When I think of it, I think it would be 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x (.8 x 5) which results in 2,500.

    Do have a thought on this given your math expertise?

    • Richard Charnin

      May 11, 2019 at 9:40 pm

      Internet Privacy Advocate
      5^4.8 = 2264.936449
      5*5*5*5*5^0.8 = 2264.936449

  49. Cali Resident

    September 17, 2019 at 10:43 am

    Can you review the 2018 California midterm between Gavin Newsom and Alex Cox?

  50. izraul hidashi

    December 25, 2020 at 2:23 am

    LOL I find it ironic (and entertaining) that citizens still question the matter of election fraud even though their votes don’t even count, and they never have. Our vote (i.e. the popular vote) is nothing more than a show. A farce to trick people into believing they have the right to vote. The truth of the matter is we don’t. And the the biggest fraud of all is pretending to be a democracy when we’re not.

    But is it really a trick when all we have to do is read the Constitution? It unambiguously states that the only people who get to vote for president are specific electors chosen by members of the senate. Not the citizens. Yes it mentions a citizens right to vote shall not be abridged, but a vote for what? It doesn’t say. Only that citizens shall have a right to vote. We have the right to vote for whatever we want …except a president. That right was specifically given to an electoral college.

    People think we control the electoral college decisions, but we don’t. Our vote doesn’t mean a thing and it never has. The proof is with 5 presidents that lost the popular vote (our vote) and still won the presidency. 1 even won the electoral and popular votes, and still lost.

    1824 Election – Andrew Jackson gets 99 electoral votes and 153,544 popular votes. And John Q. Adams, with only 84 electoral votes and a mere 108,740 popular votes, still gets elected president.

    Never forget that the founding fathers were all career politicians and lawyers. The Constitution is nothing more than a bankruptcy compact between the federal government and states for the sole purpose of making us Constitutors (one who becomes legally responsible for anothers debt).

    That’s why it was drafted in secret. So it could be written in legalese and riddled with double entendres to form a government manual for trickery & deceit.

    • Richard Charnin

      December 26, 2020 at 3:30 pm

      Trump won the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. So did Gore and Kerry.


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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: