Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 2016

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
Election Fraud Overview

This post is an overview of major advances in technology which ultimately proved that election fraud is systemic. There were three major turning points:

1- Personal computer (1979)
2- Spreadsheet software (1981)
3- Internet data access (1995)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COMPUTERS AND SPREADSHEET TECHNOLOGY

Before the advent of the personal computer,  mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals  in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. The 7094 IBM mainframe  was a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. As manager of software development in Investment Banking  at Merrill Lynch on Wall Street . I used FORTRAN to develop financial models.

In the late 1970s, personal computers were considered as toys- until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden,  one could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. Lotus 1-2-3 had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately converted  FORTRAN financial programs to spreadsheets  with graphics capabilities. As a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations I switched to Excel in 1995 . Excel was used with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models.

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud. 

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous  election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gun in detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008. 

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes – not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll  was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

	2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)
Total	Gore	Bush	Nader	Other
13,108	6,359	6,065	523	161
	48.51%	46.27%	3.99%	1.23%

 

		2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate
Voted ’96	Turnout	Mix	Gore	Bush	Other
New/DNV	17,732	16%	52%	43%	5%
Clinton	48,763	44%	87%	10%	3%
Dole	35,464	32%	7%	91%	2%
Perot/other	8,866	8%	23%	65%	12%
Total cast	110,825	100%	50.68%	45.60%	3.72%
		110,825	56,166	50,536	4,123

 

		2000 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)
Voted ’96	Turnout	Mix	Gore	Bush	Other
New/DNV	18,982	18%	52%	43%	5%
Clinton	42,183	40%	87%	10%	3%
Dole	35,856	34%	7%	91%	2%
Other	8,437	8%	23%	65%	12%
Total	105,458	100%	48.38%	47.87%	3.75%
		105,458	51,004	50,456	3,998

2004

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen.

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and  State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. The True Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters)  indicated that he won by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.  

2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)
	Kerry	Bush	Other
13,660	7,064	6,414	182
share	51.71%	47.0%	1.3%

 

	2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
(implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)
2000	Voted	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV	23,116	18.38%	57%	41%	2%
Gore	48,248	38.37%	91%	8%	1%
Bush	49,670	39.50%	10%	90%	0%
Other	4,703	3.74%	64%	17%	19%
Total	125,737	100%	51.8%	46.8%	1.5%
		125,737	65,070	58,829	1,838

 

		2004 Final Adjusted National Exit Poll
(Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000	Turnout	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other	Alive	Turnout
DNV	20,790	17%	54%	44%	2%	–	–
Gore	45,249	37%	90%	10%	0%	48,454	93%
Bush	52,586	43%	9%	91%	0%	47,933	110%
Other	3,669	3%	64%	14%	22%	3,798	97%
Total	122,294	100%	48.27%	50.73%	1.00%	100,185	94%
			59,031	62,040	1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37% (a 30 million vote margin). He won the  State Exit Poll aggregate 58-40% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents)
	Obama	McCain	Other
17,836	10,873	6,641	322
100%	61.0%	37.2%	1.8%

 

	2008 Final National Exit Poll
	(forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER	Mix	Obama	McCain	Other
Male	47%	49%	49%	2%
Female	53%	56%	43%	1%
Share	100%	52.87%	45.59%	1.54%
Votes(mil)	131.463	69.50	59.94	2.02

 

			2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
			(plausible returning 2004 voter mix)
Voted	2004	2008	Exact match to TVM & unadj state exit pollls
2004	Implied	Votes	Mix	Obama	McCain	Other
DNV	–	17.66	13.43%	71%	27%	2%
Kerry	50.18%	57.11	43.44%	89%	9%	2%
Bush	44.62%	50.78	38.63%	17%	82%	1%
Other	5.20%	5.92	4.50%	72%	26%	2%
	Total	131.46	100%	58.00%	40.35%	1.65%
	Votes		131.463	76.25	53.04	2.17

 

			Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
			(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted	2004	2008	impossible returning 2004 voters)
2004	Implied	Votes	Mix	Obama	McCain	Other
DNV	–	17.09	13%	71%	27%	2%
Kerry	42.53%	48.64	37%	89%	9%	2%
Bush	52.87%	60.47	46%	17%	82%	1%
Other	4.60%	5.26	4%	72%	26%	2%
	Total	131.46	100%	52.87%	45.60%	1.54%
	Votes		131.463	69.50	59.95	2.02

2004 Sensitivity Analysis

How is Kerry’s vote share effected by changes in vote share assumptions? Consider the following matrices (tables). He wins all plausible scenarios. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_foUi89DGNmwspKRFTgh5tOjjba4el2GLJEJLK-M2V8/edit#gid=0

		2004 True Vote Model
	(Plausible 2000 returning voter mix)
2000	Voted	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other
DNV	22,381	17.8%	57%	41%	2%
Gore	52,055	41.4%	91%	8%	1%
Bush	47,403	37.7%	10%	90%	0%
Other	3,898	3.1%	64%	17%	19%
Total	125,737	100%	53.6%	45.1%	1.4%
			67,362	56,666	1,709

	Kerry share of returning Gore voters
	89.0%	90.0%	91.0%	92.0%	93.0%
Share of returning Bush 2000	Kerry Vote Share
12.0%	53.2%	53.6%	54.1%	54.5%	54.9%
11.0%	52.9%	53.3%	53.7%	54.1%	54.5%
10.0%	52.5%	52.9%	53.3%	53.7%	54.1%
9.0%	52.1%	52.5%	52.9%	53.3%	53.7%
8.0%	51.7%	52.1%	52.5%	52.9%	53.4%
			Margin (000)
12.0%	9,827	10,859	11,892	12,924	13,956
11.0%	8,871	9,903	10,935	11,967	13,000
10.0%	7,914	8,946	9,978	11,011	12,043
9.0%	6,957	7,990	9,022	10,054	11,086
8.0%	6,001	7,033	8,065	9,097	10,130

	Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Kerry share of	53.0%	55.0%	57.0%	59.0%	61.0%
returning Bush 2000 voters		Kerry Vote Share
12.0%	53.3%	53.7%	54.1%	54.4%	54.8%
11.0%	53.0%	53.3%	53.7%	54.0%	54.4%
10.0%	52.6%	52.9%	53.3%	53.6%	54.0%
9.0%	52.2%	52.6%	52.9%	53.3%	53.6%
8.0%	51.8%	52.2%	52.5%	52.9%	53.2%
			Margin
12.0%	10,098	10,995	11,892	12,789	13,686
11.0%	9,141	10,038	10,935	11,832	12,729
10.0%	8,184	9,081	9,978	10,876	11,773
9.0%	7,228	8,125	9,022	9,919	10,816
8.0%	6,271	7,168	8,065	8,962	9,859

Kerry Win Probability	53.0%	55.0%	57.0%	59.0%	61.0%
		Win Prob	(3% MoE)
12.0%	99.6%	99.8%	99.9%	100.0%	100.0%
11.0%	99.2%	99.6%	99.8%	99.9%	100.0%
10.0%	98.4%	99.2%	99.6%	99.8%	99.9%
9.0%	97.2%	98.4%	99.1%	99.6%	99.8%
8.0%	95.1%	97.0%	98.3%	99.1%	99.5%

 

2008 Primary Election Fraud: A Statistical Analysis

Richard Charnin
Mar. 14, 2016

This is a May 10, 2008 post I wrote  during the 2008 Democratic primaries in which Clinton ran against Obama.  It is interesting and instructive to compare 2008 to the recent analysis of the 2016  MA and MI  Democratic primaries. 

Hillary thought she would have the nomination locked up by Super Tuesday, Feb.5. The GOP wanted to run against her from the start. They knew that they couldn’t beat Edwards in the GE, so they made sure that he would be out of the race if they got the media to ignore him. But Obama proved to be a much tougher opponent than either the GOP or Clinton ever expected.

So now Clinton and the GOP are doing everything they can to prop up Hillary and derail Obama. Beginning with her miraculous New Hampshire “win”, there has been an ongoing effort to pad her votes at Obama’s expense. Rovian tactics are being used to divide and conquer: it’s the only way that McCain can win. The media does not discuss the many indications of election fraud.

Primaries, Caucuses and Exit Polls

In the 21 primaries exit polled, Obama led by 50.4-45.8% . But Clinton led by  48.4-47.1% in the recorded vote – a  5.9% discrepancy . The margin discrepancy exceeded 13% in 5 states. The exit poll vote shift favored Clinton in 18 of the 21 primaries. The 2.5% margin of error was exceeded in 11 states. The probability that the discrepancies would be due to chance is effectively zero.

Obama does much better in human-counted caucuses than in machine-counted primaries. Texas is a perfect example. There was a 30% difference in Obama’s margin between the primaries (49-47%) and the caucuses (66-34%).  His recorded vote margin is dwarfed by his lead in the exit polls. But that’s not unexpected; the progressive (i.e. Democratic) candidate always does better in the exit polls than in the vote count due to  uncounted and switched votes.  The exit poll discrepancies would be expected to be equally distributed  between the two parties. The fact that they virtually always move in favor of the most conservative candidate indicates likely fraud.

Obama currently leads Clinton by over 700,000 in the recorded vote and by over 160 in pledged delegates. But if the exit polls and caucuses reflect the True Vote, he would be leading by more than 1.5 million votes. That would make a tremendous difference in his pledged delegate margin.Obama would be the nominee right now were it not for election fraud.

For Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates, she needs 93% of the vote in the remaining primaries. But if Obama wins 50%, he will need just 22% of the 256 uncommitted super delegates to clinch the nomination. Since Super Tuesday there has been a steady trend in SDs to Obama.

Exit polls are adjusted to conform with the actual recorded vote tally, even if it is corrupted. The WPE is the difference in the average precinct exit poll margin and the recorded vote margin. In Jan. 2005 exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky reported that Kerry led the unadjusted exit polls by 51.8-47.2. There was a 7% difference (WPE) between Kerry 4.6% margin and Bush’s 2.4% (50.7-48.3) recorded vote margin.

Operation Chaos

Just before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, Rush Limbaugh called for “Operation Chaos” to get Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton. Since March 4, there have been two sets of Republican crossover voters. The first set consists of Republican moderates who voted 2-1 for Obama. The second consists of Operation Chaos Republicans who voted for Clinton.

Final Exit poll data shows that since March 4, the percentage of Republican crossover voters has increased from 6% to 9%. The change has been totally to Clinton’s benefit. Assuming the first 6% of Republicans voted 59-28% for Obama, the other 3% (150,000) were Operation Chaos crossovers who voted 100% for Clinton!

Prior to March 4, Obama won the seven primaries in which Republicans participated by an average 57-38% vote. He won the Republican vote by 59-28%. Since March 4, Clinton has won the average vote by 51-47% and Republicans by 57-41%. Prior to March 4, Obama won the total vote by 50.1-45.6%. Since March 4, Clinton is leading by 50.8-47.8%.

Operation Chaos was one factor that may have caused Obama to lose the Texas primary by 51-47%. It definitely caused his 50.6-49.4% defeat in Indiana. Of course, the effect on pledged delegates was minimal.

New Hampshire

The Final pre-election polls (3-4% MoE) gave Obama an average 8% margin over HRC.  The early (unadjusted) exit poll had Obama winning by 8%. He won New Hampshire hand-counts by 5.90% but lost machine-counts by exactly the same margin.

South Carolina

Even though he finished third, Edwards would have done better in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.

Super Tuesday

Just like the 2004 battleground states exit poll red-shift to Bush, Clinton’s recorded vote share in 14 of 16 primaries exceeded her exit poll share. In New York, over 80 precincts, many in black areas, recorded Zero votes for Obama. Mayor Bloomberg called it fraud. In Los Angeles, 90,000 independent votes were uncounted due to the confusing ballot design (shades of the infamous Florida 2000 “Butterfly” which cost Gore over 3,000 votes).

Ohio

Clinton’s vote share exceeded her 9pm exit poll share by 3.6% (55.2-51.6%). She won the recorded vote by 10.6% (55.3-44.7%) over Obama.  But her exit poll margin was just 3.4% (51.7-48.3%).  As always, the Final Exit Poll was adjusted to match the vote count. In addition, there isconcrete evidence that Republican cross-over voters played a significant role in delivering votes to Clinton. In Cuyahoga County 17,000 Republicans followed Rush Limbaugh’s advice and voted for her. And this was also the case in many other counties.

Texas

There was a strange, impossible result: Zero votes were cast for Republicans in 21 counties (all 36,239 ballots cast were for Democrats). Zero votes were cast for Democrats in 3 counties (all 1865 ballots cast were for Republicans).  Did Republicans follow Rush Limbaugh’s advice and cross over to vote for Clinton?  We can assume that crossovers, even if not 100%, occurred in other counties.

Mississippi

Obama won by 61-37%, but 25% of Clinton’s votes came from Republicans who followed the advice of Rush Limbaugh. Obama won 65% of Democrats and Independents.

Pennsylvania

Here dirty tricks caused votes (and pledged delegates) to be stolen from Obama. Hillary won the recorded vote by 54.7-45.3%. But 100% of the votes were machine-counted. The unadjusted, “pristine” early exit poll had Obama leading 52-47%. His 5% exit poll margin became a 9% recorded vote loss. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll by 52-47. The Final exit poll matched the recorded vote 54-45.

Indiana

The latest media myth is that Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos had no effect on the Indiana primary. Their argument is that the Clinton-Obama (53-47) share of the 10% Republican crossover vote is virtually the same as the split in the total vote. Clinton won by 50.6-49.4%, but Operation Chaos Republican crossovers inflated her vote by 4%. Obama should have been a 51.5-48.5% winner.

The Delegate Calculator is an Excel worksheet model for projecting the total number delegates.

“Managing Electoral Dynamics via Covert Vote-Count Manipulation”, a June 2008 Scoop article written by Jonathan Simon and Bruce O’Dell for the Election Defense Alliance, comes to similar conclusions regarding the stolen primaries: “We present evidence supporting the hypothesis that systematic attempts are being made to manipulate the results of the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest, through overt means such as crossover voting by non-Democrats, and through covert means targeted at the electronic vote tabulation process itself. The net effect has been to prolong the nomination battle and sharpen its negativity, thereby boosting the prospects of the Republican nominee and making more plausible his “victory” in November-either by an honest count or through continued exploitation of the proven security vulnerabilities in American voting systems”.

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004
Election Fraud Overview

 

A Simple 2000-2012 Electoral Vote Simulation Model

A Simple 2000-2012 Electoral Vote Simulation Model

Richard Charnin
July 27, 2015
Updated: Oct.5, 2015
Links to website and blog posts
Look inside the books:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

The purpose of the Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Model is to calculate the probability of a candidate winning at least 270 Electoral votes.

The Total EV is calculated as the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes. The probability of winning each state is required in order to calculate the total probability of winning 270 EV. It is calculated using the projected two-party vote share and the margin of error (MoE) as input to the Normal distribution.

Prob = NORMDIST (vote share, 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)

The probability of winning the election is the ratio of winning simulation trials (at least 270 EV) to the total number of simulation trials (200).

The model contains the following 2-party vote shares:
2000- Gore unadjusted state and national exit polls and recorded shares
2004- Kerry unadjusted state and national exit polls and recorded shares
2008- Obama Unadjusted state and national exit polls and recorded shares
2012- Obama state and national True Vote and recorded shares
(In 2012, 19 states were not exit polled)

Only ONE input (code 1-8) is required to indicate the election and method:
2000: 1- exit poll, 2- recorded votes
2004: 3- exit poll, 4- recorded votes
2008: 5- exit poll, 6- recorded votes
2012: 7- True vote, 8- recorded votes

The Electoral Vote Histogram shows the results of 200 simulation trials.

There are three Total Electoral Vote calculations:
1-Theoretical EV: the product sum of state win probabilities and corresponding EVs.
2-Snapshot EV: sum of the projected electoral votes.
3-Mean EV: average EV of the all simulation trials.

In 2000, Gore defeated Bush by just 544,000 recorded votes. But he won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.7-46.8%, Given that there were 105.4 million recorded votes, then based in the exit polls, he won by at least 5 million votes. There were 11 states in which he led the exit polls but flipped to Bush. If he had won just one, he would have won the election. If he won all 11, he would have had 408 electoral votes.

In 2004, Kerry had a 48.3% recorded share, 252 EV and lost by 3 million votes. But the unadjusted state and national exit polls indicate that he had 51-52% and won by 5-6 million votes with 349 EV. Seven states with 97 electoral votes flipped from Kerry in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote: CO,FL,IA,MO,NV,OH,VA. Kerry would have had 252+97=349 electoral votes had he won the states. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

In the 2008 Election Model Obama’s 365.3 expected theoretical electoral vote was a near-perfect match to his recorded 365 EV. The simulation mean EV was 365.8 and the snapshot was 367. Obama’s won all 5000 election trials. His projected 53.1% share was a close match to the 52.9% recorded share.

The 2008 TVM exactly matched Obama’s 58% share of the unadjusted state exit polls: he won by 23 million votes (not the 9.5 million recorded) and had 420 electoral votes. Obama led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents, 2% MoE) by 61-37%, an astounding 30 million vote margin.

The 2012 Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast exactly matched Obama’s 332 electoral votes and 51.0% total vote share. In the True Vote Model he had 55.6% and 391 Electoral votes.

Pre-election Registered Voter (RV) polls projected a 57% Obama share which closely matched the True Vote Model. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the RV polls. The LVs eliminate many new voters or others who did not vote in the prior election, cutting the projected Democratic share.

LV polls have an excellent track record in predicting the bogus recorded vote, as proven by the 2008 and 2012 Election Models. Final pre-election LV polls are used by the political pundits for their projections. After all, the media is paid to forecast the official recorded vote – not the true vote.

 

 

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have won
a) 30% of returning Gore voters, b) 90% of returning Bush voters, c) both (a) and (b).

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Given it was his True Vote, he had how many Electoral Votes?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 12 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1, b) 2, c) 3 of the 12 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure and
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the unadjusted National exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll crosstab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) how voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final pre-election approval rating was 48%, but it was 53% in the adjusted National Exit Poll. The discrepancy was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free vote. The TVM utilizes final exit poll shares but estimates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 6a 7c 8c 9c 10c 11c 12a 13c 14c 15a 16c 17c 18c 19c 20c 21c 22c 23g 24c 25e

 

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Jan. 22, 2017

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42%, yet won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. 

But just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were accurate in 2016.   Clinton won the Recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%. Trump led the Election Model recorded vote forecast by 44.4-42.9% which exactly matched the 306-232 EV.

The media was in the tank for Clinton, the establishment candidate. In the pre-election and exit polls, Democratic Party-ID affiliation and corresponding vote shares were inflated at the expense of Independents. The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won Independents by nearly 10%.

Probabilities of the state and national exit poll discrepancies 

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written four books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968.  Except for 2016,  the deviations have  always favored the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The 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 with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls.  Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unadjusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

In 2016 election analysts calculated that Clinton actually won by 292-246 based strictly on the unadjusted exit polls  which favored Clinton.  They focused on four states that Trump won: WI, NC, MI and PA. The analysts assumed that the exit polls were fairly conducted – just like they had been in the past. But Trump won the post election True Vote model by 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

But why only recount states that Trump narrowly won? What about states he narrowly lost: NV, MN, NM, CO, NH?

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-2016-presidential-recounts-why-not-add-these-six-states/

The  uadjusted polls also appear suspicious in  states where they closely matched the recorded vote:  CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s in 2012 by an implausible 7%. Illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model

US Count Votes National Election Data Archive Project
Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies

2004 True Vote Model
Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Forecast and True Vote Model
Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

2016 Election Model Forecast
Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV
Unadjusted National Exit Poll unavailable
Unadjusted 28 State Exit polls: Clinton 47.9-44.7%

 

The 2004-2008 County Presidential True Vote Database Model

The 2004-2008 County Presidential True Vote Database Model

March 23, 2012

The 2004-2008 County True Vote Database Model has been restructured. Just enter the state code in cell A2 of the new “Input” sheet.

The objective of the model is to determine the most fraudulent counties in 2008. No model is perfect, but the TVM provides a good estimate of election fraud as measured by vote share and vote count discrepancies in margin from the recorded vote.

The following states are currently in the database. More states will be added:
AZ CA CO FL GA IA IL IN MA MI MO NC NM NV NY OH OR PA TN TX WI

In 2004, Kerry lost the national recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. He had 51.1% in the unadjusted state exit polls (76,000 respondents) and 51.7% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a subset with 13,660 respondents). The True Vote Model sensitivity analysis provides convincing evidence that Kerry won the election easily.

In 2008, Obama won the national recorded vote by a 52.9-45.6% margin. He had a 58% share in the unadjusted state exit polls (83,000 respondents) and a whopping 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a subset with 17,836 respondents).

The key stats are shown in the “Input” sheet. These include the state True Vote table and discrepancies between Obama’s True county vote margin and the recorded margin. Calculation details are displayed in the “Model” sheet.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin).

But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong.

The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

True Vote margins are calculated based on the returning voter method: The default method is that 2004 voters return to vote in 2008 in proportion to the 2004 state exit poll shares. Optionally, set code 1 in cell A5 to calculate returning voters in proportion to the 2004 recorded vote shares.

If the recorded vote option is used, county vote discrepancies will be lower than they would be if the default method was used. But since the 2004 recorded votes were fraudulent, unadjuted 2004 exit polls (the default) should be used to calculate returning voters to provide a better estimate of the true discrepancy.

The model automatically adjusts state and county vote shares based on the differential between the unadjusted state and national exit polls.

The user has the option of overriding the returning voter mix as well as the vote shares. Enter incremental percentage changes to a) Kerry’s returning vote counts (an automatic offsetting change is made to Bush’s vote count) and b) to Obama’s shares of new and returning voters (an automatic offsetting change is made to McCain’s vote shares.

Default 2004 living voter turnout in 2008 is set to 97%.

The model indicates that the following counties were the most fraudulent:
Wisconsin
Obama recorded share: 56.2%, Exit Poll: 63.3%, True Vote Model: 58.8%
Waukesha,Sheboygan,Washington,Milwaukee

Ohio
Obama recorded share: 51.4%, Exit Poll: 56.3%, True Vote Model: 56.2%
Cuyahoga,Franklin,Hamilton,Montgomery,Summit

Florida
Obama recorded share: 50.9%, Exit Poll: 52.1%, True Vote Model: 54.7%
Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, Brevard, Hillsborough

New York
Obama recorded share: 62.8%, Exit Poll: 71.5%, True Vote Model: 68.3%
Nassau, Suffolk, Erie, Queens, Westchester

Pennsylvania
Obama recorded share: 54.5%, Exit Poll: 63.8%, True Vote Model: 62.0%
Philadelphia, Allegheny, Bucks, Westmoreland, Montgomery, Delaware

The correlation ratio is a statistical measure of the relationship between Obama’s recorded vote share and the True Vote discrepancy. In general, there is a strong negative correlation between the two variables. This indicates that as Obama’s recorded county vote share increases (decreases) the discrepancy decreases (increases). This is an indication that GOP counties are the most fraudulent (measured by vote share margin discrepancy).

The correlation ratio is in the range from -1 to +1 (-1 is a perfectly negative correlation and +1 is perfectly positive). A near zero correlation indicates little or no relationship. A positive value indicates that the variables generally move in the same direction: as one variable increases (decreases), the other also increases (decreases). A negative value indicates the opposite: as one variable increases (decreases) the other decreases (increases). The correlation is a strong one if it is higher than 0.50 (positive) or lower than -0.50 (negative).

For example, in Ohio 2004 the -0.82 correlation indicated that Bush counties were more fraudulent than Kerry counties (based on vote share margin discrepancies). In 2008, the -0.50 correlation was not as strong but still significant.

North Carolina was an unusual exception. In 2004 there was a near-zero (-.01) correlation, indicating no relationship between county partisanship and election fraud. But in 2008, the strong negative (-0.72) correlation indicates that election fraud was more prevalent in GOP than Democratic counties.

County Correlation Ratios between the Democratic Recorded Vote and
the True Vote Share Margin Discrepancy
State 2004 2008
NC -0.01 -0.72
WI -0.70 -0.50
OH -0.82 -0.50
NY -0.62 -0.45
FL -0.43 -0.79

 

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

This 2008 analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states that voted early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots. Approximately 30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.

In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift) are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would intuitively expect.

The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average 2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average 6.8% red-shift.

For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-delivered paper ballots early/hand-delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).

This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift decreases. Note that the three points at the extreme right represent CO, WA, OR.

Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7% of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.). The remaining 63% that were recorded on Election Day were a combination of DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since 30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on unverifiable DREs, then about 50% of Election Day voting was on DREs. And that explains why exit poll discrepancies were highest in states that only had Election Day voting.

Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper ballot) votes? How did the Democratic Late Vote share compare to the overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since late votes were cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee, etc.), the Democrats did much better.

Proof: there were 121 million votes recorded before or on Election Day. Obama had 52.4%. But he had 59.2% of 10 million late recorded votes.

Here is the takeaway: If you have the option, vote early using paper ballots. Don’t wait until Election Day to vote in cyberspace. And lobby election officials to mandate that, at minimum, the paper ballots are hand counted in randomly selected precincts or counties.

Election activists who are opposed to voting early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots should check out Oregon, Washington and Colorado. Oregon installed its vote-by-mail system in 1998. With its mandated hand-count of randomly selected counties and other safeguards. Since 2000, Oregon has by far the best record of all the battleground states based on various statistical measures of accuracy. Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

How the Final 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote

Richard Charnin

Jan. 6, 2011

This is a quick summary of the changes that were made to the unadjusted, pristine exit polls in order to force them to match the recorded vote.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National exit polls vs. recorded votes and National True Vote Model

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&output=html

2000
Adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 1996’ – forced to match the recorded vote. Gore 48.4-47.9%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents): Gore  48.5-46.4%.
Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (57,866 respondents): Gore 50.8-44.4%.
True Vote Model:  Gore 51.6-44.7%.

2004
Adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2000’ – forced to match the recorded vote. Kerry 48.3%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Adjusted Final NEP ‘Gender’ – forced to match the recorded vote Kerry had 47.8%.
Unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2000’ (3182 respondents). Kerry had 51.7%.
Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76192 respondents). Kerry had 51.1%.
True Vote Model. Kerry had 53.6%.

Based on the 3182 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2000:
1- The unadjusted 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 47.8%, Bush 48.4%, Other 3.8%.
2- The Final 2004 NEP implies that Gore had 44.6%, Bush 51.8%, Other 3.6%.
But Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 and had 50.8% in the unadjusted exit poll.
The unadjusted 2004 exit poll understated Kerry’s True Vote share by nearly 2%.

2008
Adjusted Final NEP ‘Gender’ – forced to match the recorded vote. Obama had 52.7%.
Adjusted Final NEP ‘Voted 2004’ – forced to match the recorded vote. Obama had 52.9%.
Unadjusted NEP total (17836 respondents). Obama had 61.0%.
Unadjusted NEP ‘Voted 2004’ (4178 respondents). Obama had 58.0%.
Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82388 respondents). Obama had 58.1%.
True Vote Model. Obama had 58.0%.

Based on the 4178 respondents who were asked how they voted in 2004:
1- The unadjusted 2008 NEP implies that Kerry had 50.2%, Bush 44.6%, Other 5.2%.
This is close to the unadjusted 2004 NEP (Kerry 51.7%), but the 3rd party (Other) recorded share was 1.0%, a 4.2% discrepancy from the implied share.

2- The Final 2008 adjusted NEP implies that Kerry had 42.3%, Bush 52.6%, Other 4.6%.
This is far from the unadjusted and Final 2004 NEP (Kerry 48.3%).
The discrepancy is due to the Final 2008 NEP being forced match to the recorded vote.

National Exit Poll Timeline
Kerry led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%). The exit pollsters had to switch 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match to the recorded vote.
Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes. But the True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

11/3/04 1:24pm, Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Unadjusted National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents
Sample Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%
http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/cf/action/catalog/abstract.cfm?label=&keyword=USMI2004-NATELEC&fromDate=&toDate=&organization=Any&type=&keywordOptions=1&start=1&id=&exclude=&excludeOptions=1&topic=Any&sortBy=DESC&archno=USMI2004-NATELEC&abstract=abstract&x=32&y=9

11/2/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

11/2/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

11/2/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
Kerry 51%; Bush 48%
http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

2004
Final Exit Polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008
Final Exit Polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

1988-2016 Recorded Votes vs. Exit Polls vs. True Vote Models

Richard Charnin
Nov. 13, 2011
Updated: Nov. 29, 2016

The 1988-2016 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database contains a wide selection of tables and graphs for presidential election analysis. The data source is the Roper website.

Adjusted “final” exit polls do not reflect actual exit poll response and just parrot the recorded (fraudulent) vote. The fraud factor is assumed to be zero in all official final polls. This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

Unadjusted exit poll data shares have closely matched the corresponding True Vote Model. The TVM calculates feasible estimates of returning and new voters. State and national exit poll demographic cross tabs in the mainstream media are always forced to match the recorded vote by “adjusting” category weightings and/or vote shares.

The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares measured by…
1) Recorded Vote: 48.08-45.96%
2) Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate:51.88-41.71% (370,000 respondents)
3) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.86-41.65 (85,000 respondents)
4) True Vote Model (methods 2-3): 51.6-42.9%
5) True Vote Model (method 4): 53.2-41.0%
6) State Exit Polls (WPE/IMS) method: 51.0-43.0%

The Democrats won the exit poll and lost the recorded vote in the following states:
1988: CA IL MD MI NM PA VT (Dukakis won the unadjusted Nat Exit Poll 50-49%)
1992: AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA
1996: AK AL CO GA ID IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA
2000: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE state to win)
2004: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)
2008: AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE

In 2000, Gore won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. But he won the recorded vote by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). There were six million uncounted votes, the vast majority (75-80%) for Gore. Uncounted ballots accounted for 3-4 million of the 5.5 million vote discrepancy. Vote switching and ballot stuffing may account for the remaining 1-2 million.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) indicated that Kerry won by 51.7-47.0%. Exit pollsters Edison/Mitofsky suggested the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis to explain the difference: there must have been 56 Kerry responders for every 50 Bush responders. There was no evidence to back it up.

Mitofsky used the same argument to explain the large 1992 exit poll discrepancies. Clinton had 43.0% recorded, a six million vote margin. But he had 47.6% in the unadjusted exit poll- a 16 million landslide. Mitofsky never mentioned the 1992 Vote Census which showed that there were 10 million more votes cast than recorded. Uncounted ballots accounted for half the 10 million discrepancy in margin.

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

The pollsters applied their unsupported hypothesis by forcing the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote. They indicated that 43% of 122.3 (52.6 million) of the 2004 electorate were returning Bush 2000 voters and 37% returning Gore voters. But 52.6 million was an impossible statistic; it implied a 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died prior to the 2004 election and one million did not return to vote. Therefore, no more than 47 million Bush 2000 voters (38.4% of the 122.3 million) could have returned. There had to be 5.6 million PHANTOM BUSH VOTERS.

In fact, Kerry led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. Therefore, since the National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible number of returning Bush voters, the recorded vote must have been impossible. Simple mathematics proves election fraud.

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicated that Kerry had 53.6%. Why the difference between the TVM and the unadjusted state and national exit polls? The exit pollsters apparently designed their 2004 sample based on the bogus 2000 recorded vote which indicated that Gore won by just 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). On the other hand, the TVM uses a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election. Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.5%; he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%.

In 2008 Obama led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61.0-37.2%. As usual, the NEP was forced to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%).

Why the discrepancy? The National Exit Poll was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by indicating that returning Bush and Kerry voters comprised 46% and 37%, respectively, of the electorate. The pollsters implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 6 million votes and the True Vote Model by 10 million.

The following examples illustrate how the exit pollsters rigged the Final 2004 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs to force them to match the recorded vote.

Bush Approval
The pollsters had to inflate Bush’s pre-election approval rating by a full 5% in order to force a match to the recorded vote – and perpetuate the fraud. Bush had 50.3% approval in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate, but just 48% approval in 11 final pre-election polls. Therefore, the unadjusted exit polls understated Kerry’s True Vote by 2%. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to increase Bush approval to 53%, a full 5% over the 48% average of 11 pre-election polls. If Bush’s true approval was 48%, that means Kerry had 53.6% – matching the True Vote Model.

Party-ID
In order to force a match the recorded vote, the pollsters had to “adjust” the state exit poll Dem/Rep Party-ID split from 38.8/35.1% to 37/37% in the Final National Exit Poll.

There was a near-perfect 0.99 correlation between Bush’s unadjusted state exit poll shares and approval ratings and a 0.93 correlation between his shares and Republican Party-ID.

This chart displays Bush’s unadjusted state exit polls, approval ratings and Republican Party-ID.

The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on Census votes cast, mortality, prior election voter turnout and National Exit Poll vote shares. The TVM closely matched the exit polls in each election. In 2008, it was within 0.1% of Obama’s 58.0% unadjusted exit poll share.

These tables display the trend in unadjusted state and national exit polls, True Vote and recorded vote shares.

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
The discrepancies between the official recorded vote and unadjusted exit polls are in one direction only. This cannot be coincidental. The True Vote Model is confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – and vice versa.

There was a massive 8% discrepancy between the exit polls (52D-42R) and the recorded vote (48D-46R). The Probability P of the discrepancy is less than:
P = 8E-10 = 1- Normdist (.52,.48,.012/1.96, true)
P = 1 in 1.2 billion

Example: 274 state presidential exit polls (1988-2008)
A total of 232 polls shifted from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican. Only 42 shifted to the Democrat. Normally, as in coin-flipping, there should have been a near equal shift. The Binomial distribution calculates the probability that 232 of 274 would red-shift to the GOP: 9.11E-35 (less than 1 in a trillion trillion). E-35 is scientific notation for 35 places to the right of the decimal point. For instance, E-3= .001 or 1/1000.

The Poisson_distribution function is used for calculating the probability in which each event has a very low probability of occurrence. The Margin of Error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state exit polls. Only 14 would normally be expected. Of the 135, 131 moved in favor of the Republicans, 4 to the Democrat. The probability P that 131 of 274 would red-shift beyond the margin of error is P = E-116 = Poisson (131, .025*274, false).
P = .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001

The 274 exit polls comprise the Ultimate Smoking Gun which proves Systemic Election Fraud.

The following table summarizes
a) the number of state elections in which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote,
b) the number (n) of states in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican,
c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE to the Republican,
d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,
e) the Democratic recorded share,
f) the differential between the exit poll and recorded vote share.

Year RS >MoE Probability.. Exit Vote Diff
1988 21.. 12... E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may very well have won a close election.
1992 45.. 27... E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
1996 44.. 19... E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton won in a landslide, much bigger than recorded.
2000 34.. 17... E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore won by 5-7 million True votes.
2004 42.. 23... E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry won a 10 million True vote landslide.
2008 46.. 37... E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama won a 23 million True vote landslide.

(%)……….        Nat Exit…….  State Exit……..Recorded……  Red shift
Year..Votes… Dem.. Rep…… Dem… Rep… Dem… Rep… GOP >MoE
Total………… 51.58 41.76…. 51.72 41.71.. 48.34 46.16….232 135 131

1988 91,595. 49.81  49.15.. 50.30 48.70.. 45.64 53.46…… 21 12 12
1992 104,424 46.31 33.47.. 47.59 31.74.. 43.01 37.46…… 45 27 27
1996  96,275  52.20 37.50.. 52.64 37.06.. 49.18 40.82…… 44 19 18
2000 105,417 48.51 46.27.. 50.75 44.76.. 48.38 47.87…… 34 17 16
2004 122,294 51.71 46.95.. 50.97 47.71.. 48.28 50.72…… 42 23 22
2008 132,310 60.96 37.23.. 58.06 40.29.. 52.87 45.60…… 46 37 36

 

An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis Not Required

An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis Not Required

Richard Charnin

Oct. 31, 2011
Updated: Dec 9, 2012

Track Record:2004-2012 Forecast and True Vote Models https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRZkaZQuKTmmd_H0xMAnpvSJlsr3DieqBdwMoztgHJA/edit

Regardless of the method used for state projections, only the state win probabilities are needed to calculate the expected electoral vote. A simulation or meta-analysis is required to calculate the electoral vote win probability.

Calculating the expected electoral vote is a three-step process:

1. Project the 2-party vote share V(i) for each state(i) as the sum of the final pre-election poll share PS(i) and the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):
V(i)= PS(i) + UVA(i)

2. Compute the probability of winning each state given the projected share and the margin of error at the 95% confidence level:
P(i) = NORMDIST (V(i), 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)

3. Compute the expected electoral vote as the sum of each state’s win probability times its electoral vote:
EV = ∑ P(i) * EV(i), for i = 1,51

The most efficient method for projecting the electoral vote win probability is Monte Carlo simulation. This technique is widely used in many diverse applications when an analytical solution is prohibitive. It is the perfect tool for calculating the EV win probability.

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model snapshot forecast exactly matched Obama’s 332 Electoral Votes. The model also forecast a 320.7 theoretical (expected) EV and a 320 simulation (mean) EV.

In the 2008 Election Model, Obama’s 365.3 expected theoretical electoral vote was a near-perfect match to his 365 recorded EV. His 365.8 simulation mean EV converged to the theoretical and his snapshot EV was 367. The projected 53.1% share was a close match to the 52.9% recorded share. His 100% win probability was based on 5000 election trials.

But the Election Model utilized pre-election Likely Voter (LV) polls which understated Obama’s True Vote. The National Registered Voter (RV) polls projected 57% which was confirmed by the a) True Vote Model (58%,420 EV), b) unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (58%,420 EV) and c) unadjusted National Exit Poll (61%).

What does this prove? That no more than 500 simulation trials are required to approach the theoretical forecast recorded EV. The simulation is based strictly on state win probabilities. The only reason a simulation is required is to calculate the electoral vote win probability (the percentage of winning election trials that exceed 269 EV). A simulation is not required to forecast the EV. It is merely the product sum of the state win probabilities and electoral votes.


Election blogs, media pundits and academics develop models for forecasting the recorded vote but do not apply basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in their overly simplistic or complex models. They never mention the systemic election fraud factor. But it is a fact: the recorded vote differs from the True Vote in every election.

In each of the 1988-2008 elections, the unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls have differed from the recorded vote. The Democrats won the unadjusted poll average by 52-42% compared to the 48-46% recorded margin. The exit polls confirmed the 1988-2008 True Vote Model in every election.

The 2004 Monte Carlo Election Simulation Model calculates 200 election trials using final state pre-election polls and post-election exit polls.

2004 Election Model

The 2004 Election Model used a 5000 election trial simulation. The win probability is the percentage of winning election trials. The average electoral vote will approach the theoretical value (the EV summation formula) as the number of trials increase: the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) applies. The average and median EV’s are very close to the theoretical mean; no more than 5000 election trials are required to accurately derive the EV win probability.

The model projected that Kerry would have 337 electoral votes with a 99% win probability and a 51.8% two-party vote share. I allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry.

Exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky, in their Jan. 2005 Election Evaluation Report, showed an average within precinct discrepancy of 6.5%. This meant that Kerry had 51.5% and 337 electoral votes, exactly matching the Election Model.

The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) on the Roper UConn archive website had Kerry winning by 51.0-47.5%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) shows that he won by 51.7-47.0%.

Kerry had 53.5% in the post-election True Vote Model – a 67-57 million vote landslide. But it was not enough to overcome the massive fraud which gave Bush his bogus 3.0 million vote “mandate”.

The Election Model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions. This enables one to view the effects of the UVA factor variable on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Kerry won all scenarios.

Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete.

Princeton Professor Wang projected that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes with a 98% win probability, exactly matching pollster John Zogby – and closely matching the exit polls.

But Wang was incorrect in his post-mortem to suggest that his forecast was “wrong” because Bush won the late undecided vote. All evidence indicates that Kerry easily won the late undecided vote and the historical recorded indicates challengers win undecideds 80% of the time.

Based on historic evidence, the challenger is normally expected to win the majority (60-90%) of the undecideds, depending on incumbent job performance. Bush had a 48% approval rating on Election Day. Gallup allocated 90% of undecided voters to Kerry, pollsters Zogby and Harris: 75-80%. The National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry won late undecided voters by a 12% margin over Bush.

Wang never considered that the election was stolen. Then again, neither did AAPOR, the media pundits, pollsters, academics or political scientists. But overwhelming statistical and other documented evidence indicates massive election fraud was required for Bush to win.

Meta analysis is an unnecessarily complex method and overkill for calculating the expected Electoral Vote; the EV is calculated by the simple summation formula given below.

2004 Election Model Graphs
State aggregate poll trend
Electoral vote and win probability
Electoral and popular vote
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
National poll trend
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram

2008 Election Model Graphs

Aggregate state polls and projections (2-party vote shares)
Undecided vote allocation effects on projected vote share and win probability
Obama’s projected electoral vote and win probability
Monte Carlo Simulation Electoral Vote Histogram

The 2012 Election Model exactly projected Obama’s 332 Electoral Votes (the actual snapshot total). The Expected EV based on the summation formula was 320.7

This is a one-sheet summary of 2004 and 2008 True Vote calculations with many links to relevant posts and data.