RSS

Author Archives: Richard Charnin

About Richard Charnin

In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 15, 2017

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Assumption
Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

Reg Voter  Gallup Base Case
Turnout Voter Affil Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
70% Ind 38% 40% 50% 5% 5%
65% Dem 31% 88% 8% 1% 3%
70% Rep 27% 7% 89% 3% 1%
Vote share 100.0% 45.2% 48.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Votes 136.2 61.6 65.8 4.4 4.4
Trump %
Dem   Rep Turnout      
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.1%
64% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9%
65% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7%
66% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5%
67% 47.6% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3%
Trump Vote
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.6 66.8
64% 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.6
65% 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3
66% 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8 66.1
67% 64.9 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8
Clinton %
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 45.2% 45.0% 44.9% 44.7% 44.5%
64% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9% 44.7%
65% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9%
66% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1%
67% 45.9% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2%
Trump %  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.5%
64% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2%
65% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8%
66% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.4%
67% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1%
Trump  Vote  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2
64% 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7
65% 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
66% 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7
67% 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

2016 True Vote Sensitivity analysis: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Feb. 25, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of the 2016 Presidential True Vote. Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.8 million. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote due to election fraud.

There is evidence that millions of illegals probably voted in 2016 (80% for Clinton). View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast,  over one million  Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via  Crosscheck,  a system which eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls.

There is evidence that  George Soros , a Clinton backer,  controls voting machines in 16 states.  Election analyst Bev Harris has posted Fraction Magic , an algorithm used to flip votes on Central tabulators.

Sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of assumptions on the vote count. The results confirm other analyses which show that Trump won the popular vote.

Let TV = True Vote
RV = Recorded vote
Then we have:
RV = TV + Fraud

Given:
Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6
Election fraud components:
F =Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
I = Illegal voters (non-citizens)
U = Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
I = 3  million: 2.4 million voted for Clinton,  0.6 million for Trump
U =7 million: 5.6 million voted for Clinton, 1.4 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 2.8 million: 67.7-64.9 (48.3-46.3%)

Sensitivity Analysis
Given: U=7 million (5.6 million to Clinton, 1.4 million to Trump)
Worst case: (I=4 million, F=3 million) Clinton wins by 0.83 million
Base case: (I=3 million, F=4 million) Trump wins by 2.77 million
Best case: (I=2 million, F= 5 million) Trump wins by 3.57 million

Assume the following changes to the base case assumptions:
I = 2  million: 1.6 million voted for Clinton,  0.4 million for Trump
U = 3 million: 2.7 million voted for Clinton, 0.3 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 4.0 million: 66.8-62.8 (48.7-45.8%)

View the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/millennials-make-up-almost-half-of-latino-eligible-voters-in-2016/ph_election-2016_chap1-chart-08/

Number of Latino Eligible Voters Is Increasing Faster Than the Number of Latino Voters in Presidential Election Years

 Base Case Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61
    48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal -3.0 -2.4 -0.6 0
Uncounted +7.0 5.6 1.4 0
Vote Flip  – -4.0 4.0 0
True Vote 140.22 64.9 67.7 7.6
 Base Case   46.3% 48.3% 5.4%
Illegals  4.0 3.0  2.0
Flip  Trump
5.0 67.7 67.9 68.1
4.0 67.5 67.7 67.9
3.0 65.9 66.1 66.3
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Trump %
5.0 48.3% 48.4% 48.6%
4.0 48.1% 48.3% 48.4%
3.0 47.0% 47.1% 47.3%
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Clinton %
5.0 46.3% 46.2% 46.0%
4.0 46.4% 46.3% 46.2%
3.0 47.6% 47.4% 47.3%
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Trump
Flip  Margin
5.0 2.77 3.17 3.57
4.0 2.37 2.77 3.17
3.0 -0.83 -0.43 -0.03
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Probability of exactly forecasting the electoral vote in the last three elections

Richard Charnin
Feb. 11, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

I was asked to calculate the probability of my exact forecast of the Electoral Vote in the last three elections (365,332,306). It was a combination of experience and luck. I do not expect to exactly forecast the EV in 2020.

My Track Record
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

Note that the following calculation is just an approximation.

Assume the following:
1) the probability of Obama winning in 2008 was 0.95; it was also 0.95 in 2012. The probability of Trump winning in 2016 was 0.05.
Therefore the probability of forecasting all three winners correctly is
P1 = 0.045 =.95*.95*.05

2) the winning EV is in the 270-370 range.
The probability of exactly forecasting the EV in a given election is 0.01. The probability of exactly forecasting the EV in all 3 elections is 1 in a million:
P2 =.000001 = 0.01*0.01*0.01

Therefore, the probability of forecasting the winner and the EV in the three elections is
P3 = P1*P2 = .045* 0.000001 or 1 in 22 million.

To put it another way, forecasting the electoral vote exactly in three successive elections would be expected to occur just once in 22 million elections (88 million years).

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 11, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

HISPANIC VOTER TURNOUT TREND

Richard Charnin
Feb. 10, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

In the 1988-2012 elections, an average of 47.6% of eligible  Hispanics turned out to vote. In 2016, 54.9% turned out. The 7.3% increase over the average represents 1.1 million of 15 million votes – a  2.2% probability.

In 2016, approximately 3.8 million (95%) of 4 million newly registered Hispanics voted (from 2012). Only 2 million new voters would have been expected based on the historic voter turnout trend. Were the nearly 2 million new voters illegal?

Hispanic Votes in millions
Year Reg Voted Turnout
1988  7.7 3.7  48.1%
1992  8.3 4.3  51.8%
1996 11.2 4.9 43.8%
2000 13.2 5.9 44.7%
2004 16.1 7.6 47.2%
2008 19.5 9.7 49.7%
2012 23.3 11.2 48.1%
2016 27.3 15.0 54.9% < 95% new voter turnout?
Millions of illegals probably voted in 2016.

View the data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1546668571

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/looking-forward-to-2016-the-changing-latino-electorate/

Number of Latino Eligible Voters Is Increasing Faster Than the Number of Latino Voters in Presidential Election Years

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

Sanders won the CA primary with at least 53% – a 14% discrepancy from the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
Feb. 9, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

This analysis shows that Sanders had a conservative 53.2% in the California primary. His recorded share was just 46.6%.

Knowing the extent of the fraud in the primary, are we to believe that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million over Trump? Are we to believe the corporate media shills who are in the tank for Hillary and claim there is no evidence of fraud and that Trump is just blowing smoke?

The California primary vote timeline indicates it was stolen in early voting before 5pm on June7.

– On Election Day June 7, prior to 5pm, Sanders had 36.6% of 1.52 million recorded absentee votes by mail (VBM). But a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles VBM compared to the actual results.

Ballots from likely Clinton voters were counted first while unaudited heavy batches of Sanders’ votes came in later.

On June 7, from 5pm to poll closing, Sanders had 48.9% of 1.95 million ballots. From June 8 to July 7, Sanders had 52.7% of 1.65 million ballots.

But we must also consider nearly 1 million uncounted ballots:
– Sanders had an estimated 66% of 100,000 provisional ballots.
– He had an estimated 71% of one million NPP (no-party preference) ballots.

THREE SCENARIOS
If Sanders had an early VBM share of
a- 47% he would have won CA with 53.2% (400,000 votes).
b- 42% he would have won with 52.0% (250,000 votes).
c- 36.6% (reported) he would have won with 50.7% (87,000 votes).

Spreadsheet calculations: Go to cell M88. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 9, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

CALIFORNIA PRIMARY VOTE TIMELINE INDICATES IT WAS STOLEN IN EARLY VOTING BEFORE 5PM ON JUNE 7.

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Sanders had 43.6% in the California primary on Election Day, June 7. He had 52.7% in ballots counted from June 8-July 7 for a total 46.6% share. View CA counties timeline from June 7 to July 7: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

But those are the recorded votes. He did much better than 46.6%.

1- In LA County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 33.4% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 42.4% at closing on June 7. He had 45.1% in the final count on July 7. “Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results”. http://www.inquisitr.com/3202381/election-justice-on-california-primary-early-voter-exit-poll-yields-23-discrepancy-with-l-a-vote-by-mail-totals/#y2htCZ1YrCQapYPK.99

2- In San Diego County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 35.8% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 44.5% at closing on June 7. He had 48.1% in the final count on July 7. From Ray Lutz: “We won! Press conf details how San Diego County (and many others) cheat on election audits. Court case PROVES election audit fraud in San Diego, where they left out 285,000 ballots from the audit, and then carefully rifled through and pre-counted 192,000 in the audit. Bernie Sanders won 58% to 42% in the polling-place ballots but lost 58% to 42% against HRC in the “rifled through” and precounted vote-by-mail ballots”.

Finally, provisional ballots were a landslide for BS by 62.54% to 37.46%. The Later VBMs and Provisionals were not audited at all, and this was the subject of our lawsuit (which we won). The final margin of victory by HRC was a razor-thin 3.75%. The later VBMs and provisional ballots leaves a big hole for undetectable hacking to occur either by a compromised employee or by external hackers with access to the central tabulator, or simply mistakes in tabulating machines. The margin of victory was only 16,000 votes between Clinton and Sanders in the primary, easily hid in the 285,000 unaudited ballots, and even in those 68,000 accepted but unaudited provisional. Clearly, such blatant violation of the election code is a form of election fraud. http://www.copswiki.org/Common/SanDiegoPrimaryRecount2016

3- Humboldt County,CA is the only one in the U.S. with a foolproof Open Source vote counting/audit system. Is it just a coincidence that Bernie had his highest share in Humboldt (71%)? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/bernie-landslide-in-ca-humboldt-cty-open-source-system/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/confirmation-bernie-won-california-by-at-least-100000-votes/

J.T. Waldron writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564
As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.

In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift: “On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.

By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers”.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 5, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

Russian tampering with the election?

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2017

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Russian tampering with the election? Who do you believe: Hillary Clinton, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc…Or these guys?

– CIA veteran Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhziSn_lcE

– Julian Assange. Russians did not leak. He has never been wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhgVnn_vH5k

–  Barack Obama. In his last press conference said it was a leak, not a hack. http://www.globalresearch.ca/stunning-admission-from-obama-on-wikileaks-dnc-emails-leaked-but-not-hacked/5569807

–  William Binney,. NSA system developer. If the Russians hacked there would be evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q92IsbG-O1w

– Robert David Steel, former CIA case officer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhgtg-4EU8U&feature=youtu.be

– Craig Murray, UK ambassador, met the DNC leaker (7:00 mark). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DvaVrRweY

– John McAfee, Cyber-security expert. No Russian Hack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: 5 problems with CIA claim that Russian hacked the election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIrPLHVfdI

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: Fake news from Washington Post that Russia hacked the Vermont Power Grid. Never happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSrprBYdxA

– Glenn Greenwald, on the lack of evidence in the Washington Post CIA leaks. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 31, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis