Category Archives: 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court & Recall Elections

Wisconsin 2014 Governor: Cumulative Ward Voting Indicates Fraud

Wisconsin 2014 Governor: Cumulative Ward Voting Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Dec.2, 2014
Updated: May 19, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Index of Wisconsin Blog Posts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The 2014 Wisconsin Governor Cumulative County vote share analysis for all units/wards is available in a spreadsheet for viewing. Vote shares are sorted by increasing ward size for each county. The graphs look strikingly similar to the equivalents in the 2012 recall (especially Milwaukee and Racine). This indicates that the 2012 vote theft strategy was repeated in 2014. If it worked in the recall, why change it? Cumulative vote graphs for the largest counties are located adjacent to the unit/ward vote counts.

In Milwaukee County, Walker vote shares increased as a function of Unit/Ward size. The increase can be considered as evidence of fraud. One would expect that the lines would be nearly parallel after 90,000 votes. But even parallel lines could indicate constant fraud throughout the county. See the graph below.

A good analogy is a baseball player’s batting average. The BA will fluctuate greatly in the beginning of the season due to the small number of at bats. But the BA becomes less volatile as the number of at bats increase – an illustration of the Law of Large Numbers.

The counties that look the most suspicious by the upward slope of Walker shares in large units and wards are Ashland, Brown, Kenosha, Dane, Eau Claire, Jefferson, Milwaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Winnebago, Waukesha. Of course, a flat line could indicate fraud is uniform throughout the county

This spreadsheet can be used as a reference. It will be be enhanced in the near future. Let me know what features you would like to see. View the voting data and graphics in the sheets: Adams-Menominee and Milwaukee-Wood.

This Veterans Today link from Jim Fetzer is no longer valid. It will be replaced.

Wisconsin 2014 Governor: Total State Cumulative Vote shares
Note how Walker’s vote share initially declines in the smallest wards and reverses trend as the size of wards increase (at the 1 million mark). This is counter-intuitive: Walker’s share should continue the downward trend since larger wards are generally in Democratic strongholds (Dane, Milwaukee..).

Compare the 2012 recall cumulative county vote trend analysis to 2014.


Tags: , ,

Four Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Four Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 23, 2012

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there were repetitive patterns in the cumulative county vote shares over four recent Wisconsin elections. The patterns are obvious; the county graphs are virtual duplicates.

This post is a work-in-process, but since the data tables and graphs are completed, I wanted to make them available while the analysis is ongoing.

The following counties appear most anomalous: Brown, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Croix, Milwaukee, Oneida, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Sheboygan, Trempealeau, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago.

Republican vote shares are increasing (lines slope upward) while Democratic shares decrease (slope downward) at the same rate. This is an indicator of likely vote switching.

Summary of Key Walker Recall Results
Walker won the recall by 171,000 votes (53.1-46.8%).

In 15 large counties, Barrett’s vote shares at 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 54.2%, 52.1% and 48.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.51 million of the total 2.52 million recorded votes.

Milwaukee County is the largest and most anomalous. In the recall, Barrett had 63.3% of the total 396,000 votes. But he had 74.4% at the 25% mark, 70.4% at 50% and 66.5% at 75%. Looking at Barrett’s shares in terms of remaining votes, he had 59.4% of the final 75%, 55.9% of the final 50% and 53.0% of the final 25%. In other words there was a 21.4% decline in Barrett’s 74.4% vote share of the first 100,000 votes to 53.0% in the final 100,000 votes.

Barrett’s True Vote Model 54.4% share is within 0.2% of his 15 county cumulative share at the 25% mark. His total Wisconsin share (assuming an equal level of fraud in the other 57 counties) was 52.4%.

In the 15 counties, there was a 6.0% difference between Barrett’s 54.2% at the 25% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 6.1% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 52.4% Wisconsin True Vote share.

In the 15 counties, there was a 4.0% difference between Barrett’s 52.1% at the 50% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 4.0% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 50.3% Wisconsin True Vote share.

2008 Presidential Election
The cumulative vote analysis essentially confirmed the unadjusted exit poll. Obama won the WI recorded vote by 56.2-42.7%. He won the unadjusted exit poll 63.3-35.7%, a 7.1% increase over the recorded vote share.

In 15 of the largest counties, Obama’s vote shares at the 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 62.4%, 60.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.85 million (62%) of the 2.98 million total recorded votes.

Assuming that the 25% mark of total cumulative votes represented the True Vote, the True Vote estimates vs. Recorded vote shares follow:
2008 Obama 61.5 vs. 56.2%
2010 Feingold 53.0 vs. 47.0%
2010 Barrett 53.4 vs. 46.6%
2012 Barrett 52.8 vs. 46.3%

Assuming there was Zero fraud in the other 57 counties:
2010 Barrett 50.7%
2012 Barrett 50.3%

15 Wisconsin Counties
Democratic Vote Share Trend
Votes in thousands
...................Percent of total vote
2008 President..1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07%
2010 Senate.....1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69%
2010 Governor...1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23%
2012 Gov Recall.1492 55.12% 52.71% 48.58%

Projected Wisconsin
Obama 2008......2983 61.51% 59.72% 56.20%
Feingold 2010...2161 53.02% 50.69% 47.00%
Barrett 2010....2161 53.39% 50.21% 46.58%
Barrett 2012....2516 52.38% 50.25% 46.28%

The Spreadsheets
The following spreadsheets use data provided by GAB. Note that Milwaukee County is displayed at the top of the screen in each spreadsheet to illustrate the similar cumulative vote pattern in each of the four elections.

2012 Walker recall (contains voting machine types for each county and municipality).

2010 Governor

2010 Senate

2008 Presidential

In the process of working on analysis of Wisconsin elections, I have developed a number of models and databases which are available online as Google Doc spreadsheets. They can be linked to from the following posts:


Tags: , , ,

Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size

Walker Recall: County Cumulative Vote Shares by Increasing Unit/Ward Size

Richard Charnin
Updated: Oct.28, 2013

This is a cumulative vote trend analysis of the Walker Recall by increasing unit/ward vote counts. The data had already been included in The Walker Recall True Vote Database Model. Each county was sorted by size of Unit/Ward. Cumulative vote shares for Walker and Barrett were calculated and the graphs were generated.

The cumulative vote trend graphics is similar to Francois Choquette’s. analysis of the GOP Primaries and Prop.37.

Note the upward sloped lines for Walker in Milwaukee, Racine, Winnebago, Waukesha counties. The Law of Large numbers is violated; we would expect flat or slightly upward sloping lines for Barrett since Democratic shares are usually higher in larger urban wards than in smaller rural ones.

If the lines are flat or upward sloping for Walker, this is an indicator of vote miscount favoring Walker.


The Law of Large Numbers

As the vote count increases, the cumulative vote shares should hardly change (the lines should be nearly flat). But if they diverge, there must be some external factor causing it. It could very well be the FRAUD FACTOR.

Consider this baseball analogy. Why do batting averages fluctuate so greatly in the spring, but less and less as the season progresses? The Law of Large Numbers. Batting average= Total base hits/Total At Bats

Vote share for Walker= Walker Votes/Total Votes (but the Law of Large numbers was violated in the election)

The following counties appear to be the most anomalous: Brown, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Shawano, Sheboygan, Walworth, Waukesha and Winnebago. Why would Barrett’s vote shares in Milwaukee County decline with increasing ward size? Presumably, larger wards are more Democratic than smaller wards. If anything, one would expect the lines to DIVERGE OR AT LEAST REMAIN PARALLEL – NOT CONVERGE.

The Wisconsin True Vote Model indicated that Barrett had 66.0% in Milwaukee compared to his 63.6% recorded share. In Brown, 52.2% vs. 40.0%, Racine 51.5% vs. 46.9%, Sheboygan 47.4% vs. 35.3%; Winnebago 53.5% vs. 43.6%.

Why would Barrett’s Milwaukee County cumulative BLUE vote shares decline while Walker’s RED shares slope upward? It’s a red flag which indicates vote miscounting.

Winnebago County


Tags: ,

The Walker recall: A correlation analysis of voting machines

The Walker recall: A correlation analysis of voting machines

Richard Charnin
Sept. 25, 2012

The purpose of this Walker recall voting machine analysis is to determine the effect of paper ballots, touch screens (DRE) and optical scanners on county and municipal vote shares.

Note that this analysis is not as complete as it should be. There is no breakdown of votes in locations where there were several types of voting machines. Only the voting machine percentages are available. The analysis will be updated when and if votes in each location by machine type are released.

We need the data in the same form as used in an analysis of Winnnebago County vote counts in which probabilities of vote share differentials between the two types of machines in the same unit/ward were calculated. Theoretically differences in the shares should have been minimal, say within 5%. But there were much larger discrepancies in a number of locations.

Using the municipal voting machine mix, there was a negative (-.24) correlation between Barrett’s county vote shares and corresponding percentage of total votes cast on DREs. Overall Barrett did better on paper ballots (.11) and optical scanners(.14). As the percentage of votes cast on DREs increased, so did Walker’s share.

The source of the data is the Wisconsin Government Accounting Board Form 190- Voting by Type of Equipment. I created this spreadsheet for the correlation analysis.

Of the 59 counties Walker won, 54 used touchscreens (DREs). But the majority of votes were cast on optical scanners.

In the 13 counties Barrett won, just five had DREs. These were the percentages of DRE votes: Iowa (76%), Eau Claire (21%), Kenosha (12%), Columbia (0.2%) and Milwaukee (0.5%). The total number of DREs was negligible in the counties.

Several correlations were calculated. The first set was to determine if there was a relationship between the municipal vote shares and the percentage of DRE votes cast in each municipality.

The correlation between votes cast on optical scanners and county vote size was 0.45. The larger counties used optical scanners almost exclusively. The correlations were -0.41 for DREs and -0.31 for paper ballots. DREs and paper ballots were mostly used in smaller counties.

In addition, correlation ratios measured the strength of the relationship between voting machines and county vote shares. Voters were encouraged to use DRE’s rather than paper ballots.

In the counties Walker won, Barrett’s vote shares were positively correlated to the percentage of paper ballots (.20) and to votes cast on DREs (0.17). His shares were negatively correlated to optical scanners (-0.21).

In the top ten Walker counties (highest vote shares), 85% of votes were cast on optical scanners, 10.7% on DREs. In the top ten Barrett counties, 96% of votes were cast on optical scanners, 1.2% on DREs.

In counties won by Walker, 76% of votes were cast on scanners, 18% on DREs.
In counties won by Barrett, 95% of votes were cast on scanners, 2.7% on DREs.

Winnebago County- Cumulative Vote Shares


Winnebago County Walker Recall: A Probability Analysis of Differences between Optical Scan and Touch Screen Vote Counts

Winnebago County Walker Recall: A Probability Analysis of Optical Scan and Touch Screen Vote Counts

Richard Charnin
Aug. 14, 2012
Updated: Oct.27, 2013

Three independent models analyzed the Walker Recall election in Winnebago County. This post focuses on a probability analysis of DRE vs. Optical scanners. Summaries and links to the Cumulative County Vote Share graphical analysis and the County/Muni True Vote Model are also included. The three models confirm the very high probability of fraud.

Assume that the votes cast on Optical scanners and Touch screens are given for a location (ward, precinct). All things being equal, the vote shares should be nearly identical. But if they are not equal, is the difference significant? And if the difference is significant, what is the probability that it would be due to chance?

Note that this is not an exit poll analysis. The probabilities are based on actual recorded votes.

The probability of the discrepancy is a function of the following:
1) number of optical scanners and touch screens
2) vote share percentages on each

If the optical scan ballots are hand-counted, we can calculate the number of touch screen votes and vote shares by subtraction. We can then determine if the difference in vote shares between the touch screens and optical scanner is significant.

This spreadsheet is a probability calculator for the discrepancy between optiscan and touchscreen vote shares in a given ward/precinct.

The Z-score is based on the bell-curve (normal distribution). Z determines the probability of the difference between the touch screen and optical scan vote shares. If
Z = 1.65, the probability is 95.2% that the difference between touch screen and optical scan vote shares was not due to chance. Election Fraud is likely.
Z = 1.96, the probability is 97.5%
Z = 2.33, the probability is 99.0%

Assume that in a given location, we have:
nv = total number of votes
ns = number of optical scan ballots
wv = Walkers total vote
ps = Walker’s vote share on optical scanners

Then we can easily determine
nt = number of TSX (touch screen) votes = nv – ns
pt = Walker’s TSX share

We can then calculate the probability of the difference in vote shares between the optical scanners and touchscreens:
1) Difference in vote shares: Diff = pt-ps
2) Standard error: Std = sqrt [ps*(1-ps)/ns + pt*(1-pt)/nt]
3) Z-score = ABS(Diff) / Std
4) Probability (Diff) = 2-2*NORMSDIST(Z)

The following table is based on the Winnebago County spreadsheet in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model. It shows that the large discrepancies between Opscan and TSX shares in the following locations could not have all been due to chance.

Model 1. Winnebago Muni DRE/Opscan Differential Vote Share Probability (Walker 2-party%)


Menasha(3,5,6).65.64% 60.23% -5.41% 1.89 5.82%
Neenah.........63.14% 73.21% 10.08% 1.67 9.45%
Poygan.........62.81% 72.66% 9.85% 2.68 0.74%
Rushford.......58.48% 65.92% 7.44% 2.10 3.59%
Utica..........66.67% 75.17% 8.51% 2.08 3.78%

Neenah(13-16)..60.32% 53.68% -6.63% 1.74 8.20%
Neenah(17-20)..51.31% 64.10% 12.79% 2.77 0.57%
Oshkosh(5).....42.73% 32.98% -9.75% 1.85 6.46%
Oshkosh(15)....50.76% 40.00% -10.76% 2.89 0.38%
Oshkosh(17)....40.48% 47.66% 7.18% 1.91 5.66%

Oshkosh(28A)...44.96% 52.58% 7.61% 1.88 5.98%
Oshkosh(29A)...60.63% 73.68% 13.06% 2.24 2.48%

Poygan Village Votes Pct
2-Party Total

Vote Count.... 662 100%
Optiscan...... 406 61.33%
TSX DRE....... 256 38.67%
Total Votes... 441 66.62%
Optiscan...... 255 62.81%
DRE TSX....... 186 72.66%

Z-Score....... 2.68
Probability... 0.74% (of 9.85% vote share discrepancy between Optiscan and DRE)

Model 2: Winnebago County Cumulative VoteShares
Note the statistically improbable increase in Walker’s share.

Model 3: Winnebago True Vote (2-party)
Barrett won the True Vote with 53.5%, a 5000 vote margin.
Walker won the recorded vote with 56.4%, a 9000 vote margin.
Walker needed an implausible 29% of returning Obama 2008 voters to match his recorded vote.

2008... Share. Votes. Alive Turnout.Votes..... Mix. Barrett Walker Barrett Walker Margin

Obama...55.90% 48,137 45,971 80.00% 36,777.... 51.97% 89.93% 10.07% 33,075 3,702 29,372
McCain..44.10% 37,976 36,267 80.00% 29,014.... 41.00% 06.96% 93.04% 2,020 26,993 -24,973
New..................................4,976..... 7.03% 55.90% 44.10% 2,781 2,194 587
Total......... 86,113 82,238 80.00% 70,766

True Vote........................................... 53.52% 46.48% 37,876 32,890 4,986
Recorded Vote....................................... 43.60% 56.40% 30,885 39,881 -8,996

2012 votes / living 2008 voters:86.05%
2012 voters % of 2008: 82.18%
Est. votes flipped:6,991 18.46%

Sensitivity Analysis
Barrett won all 18 plausible voter turnout and vote share scenarios

2008 Voter turnout in 2012:77.00% 80.00% 83.00%
Required Walker % of Obama:30.08% 29.16% 28.31%

Voter Turnout.......................... Barrett share of
Obama McCain........................... Obama McCain
80% 80%................................. 90% 7%

......Barrett Share of Obama.................. Obama Turnout
Barrett 87.0% 90.0% 93.0%.......McCain...77.0% 80.0% 83.0%
%McCain....Barrett Share........Turnout......Barrett Share
9.96% 53.19% 54.75% 56.31%......... 77% 53.61% 54.28% 54.94%
6.96% 51.96% 53.52% 55.08%......... 80% 52.86% 53.52% 54.19%
3.96% 50.73% 52.29% 53.85%......... 83% 52.11% 52.77% 53.43%
...........Barrett Margin.....................Barrett Margin
9.96% 4,520 6,727 8,934............. 77% 5,112 6,051 6,990
6.96% 2,780 4,986 7,193............. 80% 4,047 4,986 5,925
3.96% 1,039 3,245 5,452............. 83% 2,983 3,921 4,860

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.


The Walker Recall Municipal Database: A True Vote Model

Walker Recall Municipality Database: A True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
Updated: Oct.27,2013

The Recall True Vote Model is designed to be a data reference and forensic tool to uncover locations where fraud was likely. It contains voting data on a county, municipality and ward-by-ward basis.

The analysis shows that the election was very likely stolen. In order to achieve his 171,000 vote margin (53.1-46.3%) Walker’s required shares of returning Obama voters in many municipalities were implausible. The True Vote Model indicates that Barrett had a 53-54% True Vote share (2-party) and won the election by nearly 200,000 votes.

The model produces the following for 72 counties, nearly 1900 municipalities and over 3000 Wards/Units:
1) Recorded votes and True Vote estimates
2) Walker’s share of returning Obama voters required to match the recorded vote
3) Red-shift differential between the True Vote and recorded vote
4) Voter turnout as a percent of living 2008 voters
5) Recorded and True Vote Margin

The ‘Input’ sheet contains the True Vote model for analyzing the state, a county or municipality.

Default Assumptions
Barrett’s share of returning Obama voters is calculated automatically as an incremental partisanship adjustment to his assumed 90% total Wisconsin share.

For example, in Dane County, Barrett’s share of returning Obama voters is adjusted from 90% to 95%. In Waukesha, it is adjusted to 84%.

The default assumption that Barrett won 5% of returning McCain voters is conservative. According to the WI 2010 Exit Poll, Barrett had 7%.

Barrett’s share of voters who did not vote in 2008 is set to Obama’s share.

User can now set their own Barrett shares of returning Obama and McCain voters as defaults on the Input sheet (they were originally hard coded as 90% and 5%). In the 2010 Wisconsin Governor exit poll, Barrett had just 83% of Obama voters. I believe his actual share was better than that. He also had 7% of McCain voters. If Barrett’s share of McCain voters in the recall was 7%, Walker’s required share of returning Obama voters increases from 22% to 24%.

Each of the defaults can be overridden.

Sensitivity Analysis
The tables save the time and effort of asking “what-if” vote share and turnout assumptions change to calculate total vote shares and margins.

Consider these scenarios based on the following assumptions:
1-Equal 79% turnout of Obama and McCain voters
2-New voters are 11% of total 2012 electorate
3-Barrett wins 57% of New voters

Worst Case
Barrett has 87% of returning Obama voters and 4% of McCain voters
He has 52% and wins by 100,000 votes

Most Likely Base Case
Barrett has 90% of returning Obama voters and 7% of McCain voters
He has 54.7% and wins by 232,000 votes

Best Case
Barrett has 93% of returning Obama voters and 10% of McCain voters
He has 57.3% and wins by 366,000 votes

The “Muni” database worksheet is protected from user data entry.
The built-in assumptions:
– Barrett’s default share of Obama voters is 90%, as per the “input” sheet.
– His share of McCain voters is fixed at 7%.
– There is no breakout of new voters.

These are the steps in using the model to analyze a given municipality:
1. Scroll “Muni” to locate the county
2. Check the row number of the Municipality
3. Enter the row number in the ‘Input’ sheet

These articles are from Wisconsin blogger Dennis Kern:

Earlier posts on the Walker Recall:
July 11: True Vote Model: Implausible Walker Vote Shares Required to match the vote.
June 9: Exit Pollsters: MO Never Changes
June 6: Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Recorded vote
May 24: Is the Past Prologue?
May 3: True Vote Model Analysis

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Winnebago County Cumulative Vote Shares


Tags: , , ,

The Walker Recall True Vote Model: Implausible Vote Shares Required to Match the Vote

The Walker Recall True Vote Model: Implausible Vote Shares Required to Match the Vote

Richard Charnin

July 11, 2012

This analysis uses the Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model (TVM) to calculate Walker’s share of Obama returning voters that were required to match the state/county recorded vote. It is further evidence that Walker’s recorded margin was implausible and that Barrett very likely won the election.

Walker won in 2010 by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. His margin improved in 2012: he won by 171,105 votes and had a 53.1% share.

This worksheet provides a comparative analysis of the 2010 and 2012 elections.

In the recall, Walker’s biggest vote margins (in thousands) were in these counties: Waukesha (96), Washington (36), Brown (21), Ozaukee (20) and Outagamie (18). His biggest margin increases were in Taylor, Trempealeau, Price, Outagamie and Clark. The biggest vote gains were in Waukesha, Milwaukee, Outagamie, Brown and Dane.

In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. But he had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. Although the exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote, we will be conservative and use the recorded vote in this analysis.

It is important to note the sensitivity analysis tables in the TVM. They display vote shares and margins over a range of turnout and vote share assumptions around the base case.

The following DEFAULT assumptions can be overidden on the INPUT sheet:
1) Equal turnout rates for returning Obama and McCain voters.
2) Barrett’s share of returning Obama voters is estimated as an increment applied to his base case 90% Wisconsin share.
3) Shares of New voters are set to the estimated 2008 vote shares.
4) Barrett won 5% of returning McCain voters

The model calculates Walker’s share of Obama returning voters that were required to match the state/county recorded vote.
The “2010-2012″ worksheet provides a comparative analysis of the 2010 and 2012 elections

The very conservative assumption is that Obama’s recorded 56.2% share was his True share. But he did better than that. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, therefore Barrett probably did better than his True Vote shown below.

Obama had 56.2%.
Barrett had 47.1% and lost by 171,000 votes.
Walker needed 23% of returning Obama voters.
Barrett True Vote: 53.6%, 193k margin.

Obama had 36.4%.
Walker had 72.4% and won by 96,000 votes.
Walker True Vote: 65%, a 65k vote margin.
Walker needed 36% of returning Obama voters.

Obama had 67.3%.
Barrett had 63.2% and won by 107,000 votes.
Barrett True Vote: 65%, 122k margin.
Walker needed 10% of returning Obama voters.

Obama had 72.8%.
Barrett had 69.1% and won by 99k votes.
Barrett True Vote: 71%, 110k margin.
Walker needed 8% of returning Obama voters.

Obama had 54.9%.
Barrett had 36.1% and lost by 48k votes.
Barrett True Vote: 52% and won by 4,000 votes.
Walker needed 38% of returning Obama voters.

Obama had 53.1%.
Barrett had 46.7% and lost by 5k votes.
Barrett True Vote: 50.3% and won by 1,000 votes
Walker needed 18% of returning Obama voters.

Obama had 63.8%.
Barrett had 55.7% and lost by 8k votes.
Barrett True Vote: 61% and won by 15,000 votes.
Walker needed 17% of returning Obama voters.

The Walker Recall County/Ward Database
This spreadsheet database was created to facilitate analysis. A data filter function let’s one quickly view Ward totals for a given county. In addition, vote shares are calculated and automatically sorted.

The data is available as an Excel spreadsheet from Wisconsin GAB. The file consists of 3500 Ward vote records. By itself, it is not very useful since the viewer must scroll through all the records to get the desired county – a time-consuming process.

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 803 other followers