2014 Governor Exit Polls: Where are the Minority Voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.2, 2016

Governor exit polls  were forced to match the recorded vote in 2014 – as is always the case. But let’s take a closer look at the RACE demographic. Minority voters share of the total vote is shown, but corresponding vote shares are missing. When estimated vote shares are included, the Democrat is usually the winner.

GOP shares of white voters appear to be inflated. So the results are conservative: The Democrats most likely did better than indicated in the tables.

The Sensitivity analysis tables show the effect of Democratic shares of white voters on the total Democratic share.

Based on True Vote, Cumulative Vote and Voter Turnout models:
IL: Quinn did better than 35% of whites.
FL: Crist did better than 37% of whites and 85% of blacks.
ME: Michaud did better than 43% of whites.
WI: Burke did better than 42% of whites and 90% of blacks.
MI: Schauer did better than  40% of whites and 89% of blacks.
KS: Davis did better than 46% of Latinos

IL	1,263
	Pct	Quinn	Rauner	Grimm	Quinn	Rauner	Grimm
White	75%	35%	61%	4%	37%	59%	4%
Black	16%	93%	7%	1%	94%	5%	1%
Latino	6%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Asian	2%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Other	1%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Total	100%	41.1%	46.9%	3.2%	50.0%	46.0%	4.1%
Recorded		45.6%	50.1%	3.3%
FL	2,806
	Pct	Crist	Scott	Wyllie	Crist	Scott	Wyllie
White	69%	37%	58%	4%	39%	57%	4%
Black	14%	85%	12%	3%	94%	4%	2%
Latino	13%	58%	38%	3%	58%	38%	4%
Asian	2%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Other	2%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Total	100%	45.0%	46.6%	3.6%	50.8%	45.2%	4.0%
Recorded		47.1%	48.2%	4.8%
ME	1,006
	Pct	Michaud	LePage	Cutler	Michaud	LePage	Cutler
White	97%	43%	49%	9%	46%	46%	8%
Black	1%	–	–	–	95%	3%	2%
Latino	2%	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Asian	–	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Other	–	–	–	–	80%	10%	10%
Total	100%	41.7%	47.5%	8.7%	47.2%	44.8%	8.0%
Recorded		43.4%	48.2%	8.4%
WI	2,316
		Burke	Walker	Other	Burke	Walker	Other
White	88%	42%	56%	2%	46%	53%	1%
Black	6%	90%	10%		95%	4%	1%
Latino	3%	–	–		80%	19%	1%
Asian	1%	–	–		80%	19%	1%
Other	2%	–	–		80%	19%	1%
Total	100%	42.4%	49.9%	0.9%	51.0%	48.0	1.0%
Recorded		46.6%	52.3%	0.9%
MI	2,232
		Schauer	Snyder	Other	Schauer	Snyder	Other
White	79%	40%	59%	1%	41%	58%	1%
Black	14%	89%	9%	2%	95%	3%	2%
Latino	3%	–	–	–	80%	20%	0%
Asian	2%	–	–	–	80%	20%	0%
Other	2%	–	–	–	80%	20%	0%
Total	100%	44.1%	47.9%		51.3%	47.6%	1.0%
Recorded		47.1%	51.0%	1.9%
KS	2,009
	Pct	Davis	Brownback	Umbehr	Davis	Brownback	Umbehr
White	88%	46%	51%	3%	46%	51%	3%
Black	3%	–	–	–	93%	4%	3%
Latino	6%	46%	47%	7%	48%	45%	7%
Asian	1%	–	–	–	80%	13%	7%
Other	2%	–	–	–	80%	13%	7%
Total	100%	43.2%	47.7%	3.1%	48.5%	48.1%	3.4%
Recorded		46.2%	50.7%	3.2%

Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of Democratic shares of white voters on total vote.

FL		Crist	% Whites
	Pct	37%	39%	41%
White	69%	25.5%	26.9%	28.3%
Black	14%	13.2%	13.2%	13.2%
Latin	13%	7.5%	7.5%	7.5%
Asian	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Other	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Total	100%	49.4%	50.8%	52.2%

IL		Quinn	% Whites
	Pct	35%	37%	39%
White	75%	26.3%	27.8%	29.3%
Black	16%	15.0%	15.0%	15.0%
Latin	6%	4.8%	4.8%	4.8%
Asian	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Other	1%	0.8%	0.8%	0.8%
Total	100%	48.5%	50.0%	51.5%

WI		Burke	% Whites
	Pct	42%	44%	46%
White	88%	37.0%	38.7%	40.5%
Black	6%	5.7%	5.7%	5.7%
Latin	3%	2.4%	2.4%	2.4%
Asian	1%	0.8%	0.8%	0.8%
Other	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Total	100%	47.5%	49.2%	51.0%

KS		Davis	% Whites
	Pct	46%	48%	50%
White	88%	40.5%	42.2%	44.0%
Black	3%	2.8%	2.8%	2.8%
Latin	6%	2.9%	2.9%	2.9%
Asian	1%	0.8%	0.8%	0.8%
Other	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Total	100%	48.6%	50.3%	52.1%

ME		Michaud	% Whites
	Pct	43%	46%	49%
White	97%	41.7%	44.6%	47.5%
Black	1%	1.0%	1.0%	1.0%
Latin	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Asian	–	–	–	–
Other	–	–	–	–
Total	100%	44.3%	47.2%	50.1%

MI		Schauer	% Whites
	Pct	40%	42%	44%
White	79%	31.6%	33.2%	34.8%
Black	14%	13.3%	13.3%	13.3%
Latin	3%	2.4%	2.4%	2.4%
Asian	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Other	2%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%
Total	100%	50.5%	52.1%	53.7%

 

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 

2014 Senate Exit Polls: Where are the minority voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.1, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

2014 Senate Exit Polls:  Where are the Minority Vote Shares?

It is instructive to view the 2014 Senate Exit Polls in  North Carolina, Alaska and Colorado. These were close elections won by the Republicans.

In each poll, vote shares for minority voters are missing, although the percentages of the total vote are listed.  As usual, the exit polls matched the recorded vote.  But when plausible minority vote share estimates are added, the Democrat is the winner.

North Carolina

Tillis (R) was a 48.8-47.3% winner.

Just 95% of the  2783 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote. 

Assume that Hagan won 70% of the missing Hispanics, Asians and Other voters. 

Hagan wins by 48.1-47.5%.

NC 2014
Exit Poll	2783 respondents			MoE: 2.41%
	Pct	Hagan (D)	Tillis (R)	Haugh (I)
Whiite	74%	33%	62%	4%
Black	21%	96%	3%	1%
Hispanic	3%	na	na	na
Asian	1%	na	na	na
Other	1%	na	na	na
Adj.Share	95%	44.6%	46.5%	3.2%
Recorded	100%	47.3%	48.8%	3.7%
True Share		Hagan	Tillis	Haugh
White	74%	33%	62%	4%
Black	21%	96%	3%	1%
Hispanic	3%	70%	20%	10%
Asian	1%	70%	20%	10%
Other	1%	70%	20%	10%
True share	100%	48.1%	47.5%	3.7%
Recorded	100%	47.3%	48.8%	3.7%

 

Alaska

Sullivan (R) was a 48.8-45.6% winner.

Just 86% of 1,826 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume Begich won 94% of missing Blacks and just 50% of Hispanic and  Asian voters (conservative).

Begich is a 48.0-46.6% winner. 

AK 2014
Exit Poll	1826 respondents			MoE: 2.98%
Race		Begich (D)	Sullivan (R)	Other
White	78%	45%	49%	6%
Black	3%	na	na	na
Hispanic	5%	na	na	na
Asian	6%	na	na	na
Alaskan	8%	57%	38%	5%
Adj.Share	86.0%	39.7%	41.3%	5.1%
Recorded	100%	45.6%	48.8%	3.7%
True Share		Begich (D)	Sullivan (R)	Other
White	78%	45%	49%	6%
Black	3%	94%	4%	2%
Hispanic	5%	50%	47%	3%
Asian	6%	50%	47%	3%
Alaskan	8%	57%	38%	5%
True share	100%	48.0%	46.6%	5.5%
Recorded	100%	45.6%	48.8%	5.6%

 

 

Colorado

Garner won the recorded vote by 48.5-46.0%.

A whopping 20% of 994 exit poll respondents vote shares  were not included in the poll. Assume that Udall won 95% of the missing Blacks, and  60% of  Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

Udall is a 49.1-47.0% winner.

CO 2014 Senate
Exit Poll	994 respondents			MoE: 4.04%
		Udall (D)	Gardner (R)	Other
White	80%	45%	50%	5%
Black	3%	na	na	na
Hispanic	13%	na	na	na
Asian	1%	na	na	na
Other	3%	na	na	na
Adj.Share	80%	45.0%	50.0%	5.0%
Recorded	100%	46.0%	48.5%	5.5%
True Share
White	80%	45%	50%	5%
Black	3%	95%	5%	0%
Hispanic	13%	60%	40%	0%
Asian	1%	60%	40%	0%
Other	3%	60%	40%	0%
True share	100%	49.1%	47.0%	4.0%
Recorded	100%	46.0%	48.5%	5.5%

 

2014 NC Senate: Election models indicate that it was likely stolen

Richard Charnin
Jan. 28, 2016

Election Models indicate that the 2014 North Carolina senate election was likely stolen.
Willis (R) defeated Hagan (D) by 45,000 votes (48.8-47.3%).

I. True Vote Model

Given: Obama lost NC in 2012 by 92,000 recorded votes (50.4-48.4%).
Hagan wins by 17,000 votes (48.5-47.9%)

Assume Obama won the True Vote by 185,000 votes (51.4-47.4%),
Hagan wins by 155,000 votes (50.9-45.5%) 

Base Case Assumptions
Assume Obama won in 2012 by 51.4-47.4%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters
3) Willis had  90% of Romney voters
4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012.
Hagan  wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

II. Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 41.7%- Republicans 30.4%- Independents 27.8%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 35.0%- Independents 29.0%
Party-ID was adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

Assumptions:
Party Registration split
61% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans turned out.
Hagan wins by 50.9-45.4% (161,000 votes).

III. Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 260,000 of 3.17 million votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Hagan had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Hagan wins by 206,000 votes (51.6-45.1%)

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/pub

 

 

 

KS 2014 Governor Election: Four models indicate fraud

Richard Charnin

Jan. 27, 2016

Four election models indicate that the 2014 Kansas governor election may have been stolen. Brownback (R) defeated Davis (D) by 33,000 votes (49.9-46.1%).

I Cumulative Vote Shares

PhD Mathematician Beth Clarkson has sued for the KS poll tapes

Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.

II True Vote Model

Obama lost Kansas in 2012 by 252,000 recorded votes (59.7-38.0%).

Base Case Assumptions
1) 66% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Davis had 93% of returning Obama voters
3) Brownback had  78% of Romney voters
4) Davis had 50% and Brownback 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case Scenario: Davis wins by 1,000 votes: 48.1-48.0%
Note: Obama had 42% in the final pre-election poll. If Obama’s True Vote was 41%,  then Davis won the True Vote by 50-46%.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Davis has 89% of returning Obama and 17% of Romney voters.
Davis loses by 40,000 votes with 45.7%.

Best case scenario: Davis has 97% of Obama and 21% of Romney voters.
Davis wins by 41,000 votes with 50.5%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 64% of Obama and 68% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis loses by 15,000 votes with 47.1%.

Best case scenario: 68% of Obama and 64% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis wins by 17,000 votes with 49.0%.

III Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 25%- Republicans 47%- Independents 28%
Party registration: Democrats 24.3%- Republicans 44.1%- Independents 31.6%
62.7% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 62.7% of Democrats and 62.7% of Republicans turned out.

Davis wins by 48.1-48.0%
To match the recorded vote, Brownback needed 13% of  Democrats, 79% of Republicans and 38% of Independents.

IV Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 113,000 of 962,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Davis had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Davis wins by 62,000 votes (51.2-44.8%)

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Three election models indicate that the 2014 Vermont governor election was almost stolen. Shumlin (D) defeated Milne (R) by just 2,000 votes (46.4-45.3%)

Obama won Vermont in 2012 by 95,000 recorded votes (66.1-31.0%).

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 55% turnout of Obama and 65% turnout of Romney voters
2) Shumlin had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Milne had 93% of Romney voters
4) Shumlin and Milne each had 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Shumlin won by 27,000 votes: 54.3-40.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Milne needed 22.4% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Shumlin has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 16,000 votes with 51.5%.

Best case scenario: Shumlin has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 38,000 votes with 57.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 53% of Obama and 67% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 22,000 votes with 53.0%.

Best case scenario: 57% of Obama and 63% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 32,000 votes with 55.6%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 47%- Republicans 31%- Independents 22%
59.9% of registered voters turned out.

Assumption: 59.9% of Democrats and 59.9% of Republicans turned out.
Shumlin wins by 53.4-39.2%

To match the recorded vote, Milne needed 19% of Democrats, 89% of Republicans and 40% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 11,000 of 205,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Shumlin had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Shumlin won by 55.4-38.9%.

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections
Kitzhaber (D) defeated Richardson (R ) by 85,000 votes (50.3-44.2%)

Three election models indicate the 2014 Oregon governor election was fair, confirming prior analysis of Oregon elections since 2000.

http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx

True Vote Model

Obama won Oregon in 2012 by 206,000  votes (54.2-42.1%).  

Base Case Assumptions

1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Kitzhaber had 87% of returning Obama voters
3) Richardson had  90% of Romney voters
4) Kitzhaber had 44% and Richardson 46% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Kitzhaber won by 91,000 votes: 50.3-44.2%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Kitzhaber has 83% of returning Obama and 3% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 11,000 votes with 47.6%.

Best case scenario: KItzhaber has 91% of Obama and 7% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 170,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Kitzhaber wins by 63,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Kitzhaber wins by 118,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 37.8%- Republicans 29.9%- Independents 32.3%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 24.0%- Independents 40.0%

67.5% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 67.5% of Democrats and 67.5% of Republicans turned out.
Kitzhaber wins by 50.3-44.1% (91,000 votes).

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

Maine 2014 Governor: Three models indicate a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Jan. 26, 2016

Three election models  indicate that the 2014 Maine governor election was likely stolen.

Lepage (R) defeated Michaud (D) by 30,000 votes (48.3-43.3%)
Obama won Maine in 2012 by 109,000 recorded votes (56.3-41.0%).  

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Michaud had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Lepage had  87% of Romney voters
4) Michaud  had 45% and Lepage 39% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Michaud won by 51,000 votes: 50.3-41.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 23.7% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Michaud has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 23,000 votes with 47.7%.

Best case scenario: Michaud has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 88,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 44,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 67,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 31.9%- Republicans 27.1%- Independents 41.0%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 30.0%- Republicans 31.0%- Independents 39.0%
76.2% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 74% of Democrats and 78.8% of Republicans turned out.
Michaud wins by 49.2-42.3% (42,000 votes),

To match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 29% of  Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 37% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 33,000 of 642,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Michaud had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Michaud won by 71,000 votes (51.1-40.0%)

 

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 25, 2016

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

An analysis of three election models indicates that the 2014 Michigan governor election may have been stolen.

Snyder (R ) defeated Schauer (D) by 130,000 votes (51.0-46.8%)

True Vote Model

Given: Obama won Michigan in 2012 by 450,000 recorded votes (54.1-44.6%).  
This is conservative; he likely did better.

Base Case Assumptions
1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Schauer had 91% of returning Obama voters
3) Snyder had  91% of Romney voters
4) Schauer and Snyder each had 48% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case True Vote: Schauer won by 223,000 votes: 52.4-45.3%
In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 18.7% of Obama voters

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worse case scenario: Schauer has 87% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 52,000 votes with 49.7%.

Best case scenario: Schauer has 95% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 393,000 votes with 55.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worse case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 145,000 votes with 51.2%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 300,000 votes with 53.7%.

Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 9.6% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans and a whopping 64% of Independents.

Actual Party registration: Democrats 44%- Republicans 37%- Independents 19%
Given: 60.8% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 59% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans turned out.
Schauer wins by 50.4-47.4% (94,000 votes)

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 278 thousand of 3.416 million votes cast were uncounted.

Assumption: Schauer had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Schauer won by 368,000 votes (54.3-43.5%)

Jan BenDor writes:

We already knew of this fraud from our analysis of the Detroit Mayoral election in 2009 and the Gubernatorial election in 2010. The ES&S ballot programmers, who serviced all brands of the machines, were all former Michigan Republican officials or their employees. Only three counties had their own in-house ballot programmers sworn to an oath to obey the laws and Constitution. In addition, the state requires no accounting for unused blank ballots left in the custody of the elected local Clerk. This provides a huge opportunity for absentee ballot fraud, and ballot chaining.

In 2004, when counties were ordered to decide on one brand of optical scan machine, in order to spend the state’s HAVA grant, the Republican Clerks went with their favorites, Diebold and ES&S. Sequoia was left out in the cold–it had the best security. I asked the vendor what happened to his bid. The owner of the company, Barry Miller, told me, “I have been a Republican all of my life. But I guess I didn’t give enough money to their candidates.”

 

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

Richard Charnin
Jan.8, 2016
Updated: Jan.19, 2016

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

This summary analysis indicates fraud in the 2014 Governor elections, based on registration  and voter turnout statistics in the Voter Turnout Model (VTM). Sensitivity analysis of voter registration and turnout provides further confirmation of the Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) and True Vote Model (TVM). 

Six elections  were analyzed using CVS (based on county precinct voting) and TVM (based on returning 2012 election voters).  Note the near-perfect confirmation in the Democratic vote in all three models.

Recorded Vote

Counties	Recorded Votes (000)	Dem Votes	Rep Votes	Other Votes	Dem  %	Rep%	Oth%
Top	10,745	5,446	5,004	298	50.7	46.6	2.8
Other	5,981	2,398	3,366	212	40.1	56.3	3.5
Total	16,727	7,844	8,370	510	46.9	50.0	3.0
KY	974	426	511	35	43.8	52.5	3.7
IL	3,626	1,681	1,823	121	46.4	50.3	3.4
FL	5,889	2,801	2,865	223	47.6	48.6	3.8
WI	2,382	1,112	1,242	27	46.7	52.2	1.1
MD	1,733	818	884	29	47.2	51.0	1.7
MA	2,120	1,004	1,044	71	47.4	49.3	3.4

Three Models

Dem	TVM	CVS	VTM	DemReg	RepReg
Total	52.3%	52.0%	52.0%	45.4%	31.1%
KY	48.8%	49.5%	49.3%	53.4%	38.8%
IL	54.2%	54.4%	50.3%	47.0%	35.0%
FL	49.7%	51.1%	49.8%	38.8%	35.0%
WI	51.6%	50.2%	50.5%	43.0%	41.0%
MD	56.4%	52.9%	56.2%	54.9%	25.7%
MA	55.6%	56.0%	55.7%	35.3%	10.9%

Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS)

Democratic vote shares declined 5.1%  from the 10% CVS mark to the recorded vote. The Democrats did much better in the TOP counties (58.4%) which comprised 72% of the vote than in the smaller counties (40.4%).  The  7.7% decline in the Top counties is a red flag indicating fraud, unlike the 0.3% decline in the other small counties.

Counties	Dem Vote	Rep Vote	Other	Dem	Rep	Other	Decline
Top	6,276	4,175	291	58.4%	38.9%	2.7%	-7.7%
Other	2,415	3,354	212	40.4%	56.1%	3.5%	-0.3%
Total	8,692	7,530	503	52.0%	45%	3.0%	-5.1%
KY	482	452	40	49.5%	46.4%	4.2%	-5.3%
IL	1,969	1,544	113	54.4%	42.5%	3.1%	-7.9%
FL	3,008	2,659	222	51.1%	45.1%	3.8%	-3.5%
WI	1,194	1,159	25	50.2%	48.7%	1.1%	-3.5%
MD	903	777	29	52.9%	45.4%	1.7%	-5.7%
MA	1,187	861	71	56.0%	40.6%	3.4%	-8.6%

Registered Voter Turnout (VTM) and Exit Poll Party-ID

Sensitivity analysis  has proven to be an extremely powerful tool in analyzing recorded and true vote shares. It is included in the TVM to calculate the effect on total vote shares using a plausible prior election returning voter mix. In the VTM analysis, we consider the mix  (or “split”) of registered voters as the true basis for the turnout rates and range of vote share assumptions  used to derive estimated  vote shares. Independents are an important factor as they comprise 25% of the national electorate.

The analysis is analogous to the Exit Poll Party-ID ,  but the party registration mix varies from Party-ID. It has been proven (and pollsters admit), that ALL exit polls are forced to conform to the recorded vote by adjusting the category weighting mix and/or the corresponding vote shares.  The 2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID  was adjusted from the voter registration mix  (40.5D- 35.3R- 24.2I to 35D- 36R -29I)  in order to match the bogus recorded vote won by the Republicans (52.5-46.2%).

Democratic  and Republican candidates usually win at least 90% of party voters and 7-10% of the other party. This analysis shows that the Republican share of Democratic voters required to match the recorded vote was significantly higher than 10%.

The simplest measure of  political party strength is in the voter registration statistics from the  Secretary of State or the Boards of Elections. In 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allowed registered voters to indicate  party preference when registering to vote.

Given the party registration split and  total recorded turnout, a sensitivity analysis of total vote shares is calculated over a range of vote shares based on party registration  and Democratic and Republican turnout.

Although there is no evidence to support  the media’s claim that  registered Republicans turnout at a higher rate than Democrats,  it is assumed in the VTM to counter the myth that Democrats lose because of low turnout.  On the contrary, in the 2004 and 2008 elections, heavy turnout was due to  millions of new and highly motivated Democrats but  votes were flipped or not counted, giving the illusion of lower Democratic turnout.

2014 National Voter Registration Split

Registration	Split	Democrat	Republican	Independent
Democrat	40.5%	92%	7%	1%
Republican	35.3%	5%	94%	1%
Independent	24.2%	42%	56%	4%
Total	100%	49.2%	49.1%	1.7%

2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID Split

Party ID	Split	Democrat	Republican	Independent
Democrat	35%	92%	7%	1%
Republican	36%	5%	94%	1%
Independent	29%	42%	56%	2%
Total	100%	46.2%	52.5%	1.3%

Click the state links for the True Vote Model and Sensitivity Analysis tables. 

Florida

Scott (R) won the recorded vote by  48.2-47.1%.   Crist won the VTM by 49.8-46.0%,  confirming the CVS (51.1-45.1%) and TVM (49.7-45.6%).  Registered 68.4% voter turnout was assumed 66% Democratic, 71% Republican and 68.4% Independent.

The only difference between the FL Gov Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote) and the VTM is the Party-ID (31D-35R-34I) and Voter Registration 38.8D-35R-26.2I).

VTM (votes in thousands)

FL	Split	Reg	Turnout	Votes	Crist	Scott	Other
Dem	38.8%	3,372	66.0%	2,226	91%	6%	3%
Rep	35.0%	3,042	71.0%	2,159	10%	88%	2%
Ind	26.2%	2,277	68.4%	1,557	46%	45%	9%
Total	100.0%	8,691	68.4%	5941	49.8%	46.0%	4.2%

Sensitivity Analysis

		Democrat	Turnout
% Dem	60.4%	62.4%	64.4%	66.4%	68.4%
			Crist Share
93.0%	47.5%	48.6%	49.7%	50.7%	51.8%
91.0%	46.9%	47.9%	48.9%	50.0%	51.0%
89.0%	46.2%	47.2%	48.2%	49.2%	50.2%
			Margin (000)
93.0%	-12	113	239	364	490
91.0%	-94	29	152	275	397
89.0%	-175	-55	65	185	305

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.1% …. 48.2% …. 4.7%

Illinois

IL	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Quinn	Rauner	Grimm
Dem	47.0%	2,687	60.0%	1,612	91%	7%	2%
Rep	35.0%	2,001	68.0%	1,361	7%	91%	2%
Ind	18.0%	1,029	63.4%	653	40%	53%	7%
Total	100%	5.717	63.4%	3626	50.3%	46.8%	2.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4% …. 50.3% …. 3.4%

Wisconsin

WI	Split	Reg	Turnout	Votes	Burke	Walker	Other
Dem	43.0%	1,292	77.0%	995	95%	4%	1%
Rep	41.0%	1,232	81.6%	1,006	7%	92%	1%
Ind	16.0%	481	79.3%	381	49%	49%	2%
Total	100.0%	3,005	79.3%	2382	50.5%	48.4%	1.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.7% …. 52.2% …. 1.1%

Kentucky

KY	Split	Voters	Turnout	Votes	Conway	Bevin	Curtis
Dem	53.4%	1,227	40.0%	491	88%	9%	3%
Rep	38.8%	892	45.7%	407	4%	92%	4%
Ind	7.8%	179	42.4%	76	42%	51%	7%
Total	100.0%	2,298	42.4%	974	49.3%	47.0%	3.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.8% …. 52.5% …. 3.7%

Massachusetts

	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Coakley	Baker	Other
Dem	35.3%	1,147	60.0%	688	91%	5%	4%
Rep	10.9%	354	86.0%	304	9%	87%	4%
Ind	53.8%	1,749	66.1%	1,156	47%	47%	6%
Total	100%	3,250	66.1%	2149	55.7%	39.4%	4.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.6% …. 48.5% …. 4.9%

Maryland

	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Brown	Hogan	Other
Dem	54.9%	1,644	54.0%	888	89%	9%	2%
Rep	25.7%	770	66.1%	509	5%	94%	1%
Other	19.4%	581	57.9%	336	47%	51%	2%
Total	100%	2.995	57.9%	1,733	56.2%	42.1%	1.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.2% …. 51.0% …. 1.8%

Ohio

	Regist. Split	Regist. voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Fitz -gerald	Kasich	Other
Dem	41.0%	2,319	50.0%	1,160	72%	24%	4%
Rep	42.0%	2,376	56.3%	1,339	4%	95%	1%
Ind	17.0%	962	53.2%	512	36%	57%	7%
Total	100%	5,657	53.2%	3010	35.6%	61.0	3.4%

Recorded …………………………………………. 32.9% …. 63.9% …. 3.3%

Kansas

	Regist.  Split	Regist.  voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Davis	Brown-back	Other
Dem	24.3%	329	62.7%	206	94%	5%	1%
Rep	44.1%	597	62.7%	324	19%	79%	2%
Ind	31.6%	428	62.7%	268	56%	35%	9%
Total	100%	1,353	62.7%	849	48.9%	47.1%	4.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Michigan

	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Scha- uer	Snyder	Other
Dem	44.0%	2,270	59.0%	1,339	90%	8%	2%
Rep	37.0%	1,909	63.0%	1,203	7%	91%	2%
Ind	19.0%	980	60.8%	596	49%	48%	3%
Total	100%	5,159	60.8%	3,138	50.4	47.4%	2.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Georgia

	Reg Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes (000)	Carter	Deal	Other
Dem	39.0%	1,679	58.0%	974	94%	4%	2%
Rep	43.0%	1,852	59.8%	1,108	5%	93%	2%
Ind	18.0%	775	59.0%	457	47%	47%	6%
Total	100%	4,306	59.0%	2539	46.7%	51.0%	2.3%

Recorded …………………………………………. 44.8 ….52.8…. 2.4%

Colorado

	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes	Hicken-looper	Beau-prez	Oth
Dem	30.9%	820	73.0%	599	92%	6%	2%
Rep	32.9%	873	77.1%	673	12%	86%	2%
Ind	36.2%	961	75.1%	721	49%	42%	9%
Total	100%	2,654	100%	1993	49.4%	46.0%	4.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 49.1 …. 46.2…. 4.7%

Maine

	Regist.  Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes	Michaud	Lepage	Other
Dem	31.9%	255	76.2%	194	91%	5%	4%
Rep	27.1%	217	76.2%	165	9%	87%	4%
Ind	41.0%	328	76.2%	250	45%	40%	15%
Totl	100%	799	76.2%	609	49.9%	41.6%	8.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.3 …. 48.3…. 8.4%

Vermont

	Regist. Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes	Shumlin	Milne	Other
Dem	47.0%	152	59.9%	91	92%	4%	4%
Rep	31.0%	100	59.9%	60	10%	84%	6%
Ind	22.0%	71	59.9%	43	45%	35%	20%
Totl	100%	324	59.9%	194	56.2%	35.6%	8.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4 …. 45.3…. 8.3%

Pennsylvania

	Regist.  Split	Regist. Voters	Turnout	Votes	Wolf	Corbett
Dem	49.5%	3,030	52.0%	1,576	92.0%	8.0%
Rep	36.7%	2,246	63.0%	1,416	16.0%	84.0%
Ind	13.8%	845	56.7%	479	55.0%	45.0%
Total	100%	6,121	56.7%	3470	55.9%	44.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 54.9 …. 45.1%

California

	Regist.  Split	Reg Voters	Turnout	Votes	Brown	Kashkari
Dem	43.3%	6,111	45.0%	2,750	95.4%	4.6%
Rep	28.1%	3,966	47.6%	1,888	12.0%	88.0%
Ind	28.6%	4,036	46.0%	1,858	60.0%	40.0%
Total	100%	14,113	46.0%	6496	61.0%	39.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 60.5 …. 39.5%

 

 

2014 Election Fraud: Four statistical models

2014 Election Fraud:  Four Statistical Models

Richard Charnin
Dec. 28, 2015
Updated: Jan.18, 2016

This post reviews the following statistical models which strongly indicate fraud in the 2014 Governor elections:
1) True Vote Model, 2) Cumulative Vote Shares, 3) Voter Registration vs. Exit Poll Party-ID, 4) Uncounted Votes Cast (Census).

Democratic Vote Shares: Statistical Summary

Dem	Vote%	CVS	TVM	Census	D/R ExitP	D/R Registered
KY	43.8	49.1	48.0	49.3	na	54-39
MD *	47.2	52.9	56.4	59.1	na	55-26
WI	46.7	50.2	51.6	51.3	36-37	43-41
FL	47.1	51.1	49.7	50.9	31-35	39-35
IL	46.4	54.4	54.2	54.8	43-30	47-35
MA	46.6	55.9	55.6	56.5	na	35-11
CO	49.1	na	50.7	53.1	28-32	31-33
GA	44.8	na	48.2	52.2	35-37	39-43
KS	46.1	na	48.3	52.0	25-48	24-44
ME	43.3	na	51.5	52.3	30-31	33-27
MI	46.8	na	52.4	54.3	39-30	44-37
OH	32.9	na	37.7	41.7	32-36	41-42

Cumulative Vote Shares

The CVS method  uses actual precinct votes in each county. The data is sorted by  precinct size. The votes and shares are accumulated and  displayed graphically. Typically, in the biggest counties, Democratic shares peak at the 10% CVS mark and decline at the final 100% (recorded vote). This is counter-intuitive because a) the most populous counties are in urban locations which are strongly Democratic and b) as the number of votes are accumulated, the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) should result in a Steady state of equibrium in which Democratic and Republican vote shares are nearly constant.

Click these links to view the summary 2014 CVS analysis (each has a  link to the precinct votes for each county):  IL  FL  WI  MD MA  KY

The True Vote Model (TVM)

The 2012 presidential election is used as a basis for returning 2014 voters. There are two options for estimating  returning voters: the Recorded Vote and estimated True Vote.

The TVM closely matched the CVS in all governor elections except  for Maryland.  Hogan(R) won the recorded vote by 51.0- 47.2%, a 66,000 vote margin.  Brown(D) won the True Vote by 56.4-41.9%, a 251,000 margin. The CVS analysis understates Brown’s vote since precinct votes were provided only for Election Day; early, provisional and absentee precinct voting were not included. This omission dramatically reduced  Brown’s CVS since he had 54% of the excluded votes.  Click these links to view the 2014 Governor True Vote Model:  MD  IL  FL  WI  KY MA ME  OH KS MI GA CO

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-577.html

In each election cycle, the Census Bureau interviews 60,000 households nationwide to estimate  how many were registered and voted in each state.The national margin of error (MoE) is 0.3% for 60,000 respondents at the 90% confidence level. The MoE is approximately 2% for each state.

In 2014, 92.2 million votes were cast  but just 78.8 million recorded. The 13.4 million discrepancy (14.5%) was greater than in any presidential election. What is going on here?

In every one of the 1968-2012 presidential elections,  votes cast exceeded the recorded vote. The percentage of uncounted votes has declined steadily since 1988, from 10.4% to 2.9% in 2012. Uncounted votes peaked at 10.6 million in 1988 and declined to near zero in 2008. Approximately 75% of uncounted votes were Democratic (50% in minority locations).

The recorded vote was adjusted  to total votes cast by adding the uncounted votes. The majority (60-75%) of uncounted votes were  assumed to be Democratic, based on the historical fact that approximately 50% of uncounted votes are in minority locations.

Uncounted Votes = Census Total Votes Cast – Votes Recorded
True Vote (est.) = Recorded Vote + Uncounted vote

Presidential  Votes Cast and Recorded

	Cast	Recorded	Diff	Pct
1968	79.0	73.0	6.0	7.6%
1972	85.8	77.7	8.1	9.4%
1976	86.7	81.5	5.2	6.0%
1980	93.1	86.6	6.5	7.0%
1984	101.9	92.7	9.2	9.0%
1988	102.2	91.6	10.6	10.4%
1992	113.9	104.4	9.5	8.3%
1996	105.0	96.4	8.6	8.2%
2000	110.8	105.6	5.2	4.7%
2004	125.7	122.3	3.4	2.7%
2008	131.1	131.4	-0.3	-0.2%
2012	132.9	129.1	3.8	2.9%
2014	92.2	78.8	13.4	14.5%

Political Party Strength 

The simplest measure of  party strength in a state’s voting population is the breakdown-by-party totals from its voter registration statistics from the websites of the Secretaries of State or the Boards of Elections. As of 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to indicate a party preference when registering to vote.

In 2014,  the party voter preference/registration split was 40.5D-35.3R-24.2I.  The  2014 National Exit Poll indicated a 35D-36R-28I Party-ID split in forcing a match to the recorded vote (Dem 46.2-Rep 52.9%). Assuming the voter registration split and the Party-ID vote shares, the Democrats  and Republicans were essentially tied.

The registered voter split for the 12 Governor elections in this analysis was 40.6D-34.4R-24.4I, a very close match to the national split.

These 22 states do not allow party preference in voter registration:
Alabama,Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The partisan “demographics”  were obtained from the state’s party registration statistics (in late 2014 whenever possible). For the 22 states that don’t allow registration by party, Gallup’s annual polling of voter party identification is the next best metric of party strength.

National Exit Poll 2014 Party-ID (match recorded vote)

Party-ID	Split	Dem	Repub	Ind
Dem	35%	92%	7%	1%
Rep	36%	5%	94%	1%
Ind	29%	42%	56%	4%
Total	100%	46.2%	52.5%	1.9%

Registration	Split	Dem	Repub	Ind
Dem	41%	92%	7%	1%
Rep	35%	5%	94%	1%
Ind	24%	42%	56%	4%
Total	100%	49.6%	48.7%	1.7%

Matching the Recorded and True Vote using the Party Registration split

To match the recorded vote,  an implausibly low  percentage of Democrats had to have voted for the Democratic candidate. Note the difference between  the percentage of Democrats required to match the recorded vote and True vote shares. Democratic and Republican candidates usually win approximately 90-92% of  registered Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Percentage Share of Registered Democrats Required to Match

Match	Recorded Vote	True      Vote	Match	Recorded	True Vote
MA	58.5	83.9	ME	66.6	92.0
MD	68.9	84.9	OH	53.5	92.1
KY	72.4	81.7	KS	86.1	95.5
WI	88.8	94.7	MI	75.5	88.1
FL	81.3	88.1	GA	87.7	93.3
IL	83.0	91.0	CO	88.6	93.8

 KENTUCKY

Conway (D) lost the recorded vote  by 52.5-43.8% despite the fact that the Democrats led 53.4-38.8% in voter registration. Bevin needed an implausible 24.6% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. Assuming just 81.7% of Democrats voted for Conway, he won by 48.8-47.5%, closely matching the CVS and True Vote.

According to the 2014 Census, 1.525 million total votes were cast in 2014.  In 2015, Conway won by 49.3-47.0% – assuming he had 60% of an estimated 50,000 uncounted votes.

Of 2,298,000 registered  voters, 974,000 (42.4%) voted. If  39% of Democrats voted and Conway had 88%, he won by 49.0-47.3%. If 43% of Democrats voted, he won by 54-42.3%.

Party Reg	Split	Conway	Bevin	Curtis
Democrat	53.4%	72.4%	24.6%	3%
Republican	38.8%	4%	92%	4%
Other	7.8%	46%	47%	7%
Recorded	100%	43.8%	52.5%	3.7%
Votes (000)	974	427	511	36

 

Party Reg	Split	Conway	Bevin	Curtis
Democrat	53.4%	81.7%	15.3%	3%
Republican	38.8%	4%	92%	4%
Other	7.8%	46%	47%	7%
True Vote	100%	48.8%	47.5%	3.7%
Votes (000)	974	475	463	36

 

Votes Cast	Total	Conway	Bevin	Curtis
Recorded	974	426.6	512.0	36.0
Uncounted (est)	50	30.0	18.2	1.9
2014 Census	1024	505	481	38
Adj. Share		49.3%	47.0%	3.7%

 

Party Reg	Split	Conway	Turnout 39%	41%	43%
Democrat	53.4%	88%	18.3%	19.3%	20.2%
Repub	38.8%	6%	0.9%	1.0%	1.0%
Other	7.8%	50%	1.5%	1.6%	1.7%
		Conway	49.0%	51.5%	54.0%
		Bevin	47.3%	44.8%	42.3%

 

MARYLAND

Hogan (R) won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.3%. Brown(D) had 53.7% of early votes, 45.3% on Election Day and 54.5% of absentee and provisional ballots. Precinct votes on touchscreens and optical scanners were provided for Election Day only.

When 295,000 uncounted votes are added to the recorded vote, Brown is the winner by 51.2-47.0% .  When  Election Day CVS  at the 10% mark is added to the 390,000 early, absentee and provisional votes, Brown is a  52.9-45.5% winner.

Census Votes (000)	Total	Brown	Hogan	Other
True	1,733	977	726	30
Adjusted (Unctd)	295	221	68	5
Total Census	2,028	1,198	794	35
Share		59.1%	39.2%	1.7%

 

Voter Reg	Pct	Brown	Hogan	Other
Democrat	54.9%	84.9%	13.1%	2.0%
Republican	25.7%	4%	95%	1.0%
Other	19.4%	45%	53%	2.0%
Share	100%	56.4%	41.9%	1.7%
Total	1,733	977	726	30

Adjusted	Total	Brown	Share	Hogan	Share	Other	Share
Early	306	164	53.7%	137	44.8%	4.5	1.5%
Election Day	1,342	608	45.3%	711	52.9%	23.5	1.7%
Absentee/prov	85	46	54.5%	37	43.4%	1.8	2.1%
Recorded	1,733	819	47.25%	884	51.0%	30	1.7%
CVS adj
Early/abs/prov	390	210	53.9%	174	44.5%	6	1.6%
CVS @ 10%	1,391	693	52.5%	603	45.7%	23	1.7%
Adj. Total	1,709	904	52.9%	777	45.4%	29	1.7%

Notes:- Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, did an analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies: How Trustworthy are Electronic Voting Systems in the US

– A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes:Precinct
 Size
 Matters: ­
The 
Large
 Precinct
 Bias
 in
 US 
Presidential
 Elections

– Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries:2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

– Kathy Dopp is a mathematician and an expert on election auditing. She has written a comprehensive analysis of the 2014 elections:
Were the 2014 United States Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections Manipulated?  Dopp wrote:
Is it possible electronic vote-count manipulation determines who controls government in the United States? The probability that the disparities between predicted and reported 2014 election vote margins were caused by random sampling error is virtually zero. A method for extending and simplifying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA)’s measure for necessity reveals that lack of effective post-election audits is a necessary condition for the occurrence of high levels of disparity between statewide polls and election results. Maryland’s 2014 gubernatorial contest is consistent with an explanation of vote miscount having altered its outcome.  An analysis of Maryland’s partisan voter registration, turnout, and vote data by ballot type statistically confirms vote miscount as an explanation for its unexpected outcome.

Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and Kansas gubernatorial contests exhibited sufficient disparities between polls and election results (PED) to alter election outcomes; all used inauditable voting systems or failed to conduct post-election audits (PEA)s. Vermont’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, and South Dakota PED were large but smaller than winning margins.

Kansas and North Carolina senatorial contests exhibited sufficient PED to alter election outcomes and no audits were conducted. Virginia’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Arkansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Nebraska PED magnitude were large but smaller than winning margins.

A case study of Maryland’s unexpected 2014 gubernatorial outcome affirms there is, as yet, only an explanation of vote manipulation consistent with the statistical disparity patterns in Maryland’s pre-election poll predictions, and its partisan voter registration, turnout and vote data by ballot type.

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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

A Collage of Election Fraud Graphics

LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004