# Category Archives: 2014 Elections

## llinois 2014 Governor: A Comprehensive True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

Illinois 2014 Governor: A Comprehensive True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

Richard Charnin
Dec.16, 2015
Updated: Dec.18,2015

In Illinois, Rauner (R) defeated Quinn (D) by 142,000 votes (50.4-46.3%). In this analysis the focus is on sensitivity analysis in the Illinois True Vote Model.

The True Vote Model (TVM) has been used in scores of presidential, governor and congressional races. The TVM confirms the Cumulative Vote Share analysis of the 2014 governor elections. Both methods indicate that the elections were fraudulent.

Some posters have criticized the TVM by questioning the base case assumptions. Let’s put that canard to rest. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays a  range of assumptions in addition to the base case (most-likely) scenario.  Six elections were analyzed using Cumulative Vote shares (CVS).

Exit poll  crosstabs are always forced to match the recorded vote. Exit pollsters no longer ask the question How did you vote in 2012?

Base Case assumptions
1. 2012 presidential recorded vote shares
2. 2% of 2012 voters died prior to the 2014 election
3. Equal 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters
5. Quinn and Rauner each had 43.55% of returning and new voters.
5. Quinn and Rauner each had 45% of new voters.

In order to match the recorded vote, Quinn had 74.7% of Obama voters

Vote shares are identical to the shares used to match the recorded vote with one exception: Quinn has a  plausible 87% of returning Obama voters and wins by 52.4-44.3%,  a  294,000 vote margin. The TVM is a close match to the CVS in which Quinn had 53.7%.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis
Five tables and a probability matrix. Each contains 25 scenarios.

Base Case: Quinn 52.4% True Vote (295,000 margin)

Table I: Quinn’s share of new voters vs. share of Romney voters
Worst case: 51.1% (201,000 margin); Best case 53.7% (388,000)

Table II: Quinn’s share of returning Obama voters vs. share of returning Romney voters.
Worst case: Quinn wins by 102,000 votes with 49.7%.

Table III: Obama voter turnout vs. Romney turnout in 2014
Worst case: 58% Obama and 62% Romney turnout.
Quinn wins by 213,000 votes with 51.3%.

Table IV: Obama vote share vs. Quinn share of Romney
Worst case (Obama recorded): Quinn 51.7%; wins by 244,000 votes.

Table V: Obama vote share vs. Obama turnout
Worst case (Obama recorded): Quinn 49.4%; wins by 77,000 votes

Table VI: Quinn Win Probability over a range of votes shares.
Worst Case: Quinn 96.7% (he has 83.5% of Obama and 5% of Romney).

The largest IL counties all showed Rauner vote shares increasing with cumulative precinct vote totals. This is a major red flag. The results confirm the counter-intuitive CVS trend: GOP cumulative shares rise from the smallest to the largest counties, as shown in the graphs.

At the 10% CVS mark, Quinn had 54.4%, compared to his final 45.7%. At the 25%  mark, Quinn had 52.7%.

Posted by on December 16, 2015 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

## Six 2014 Governor Elections: Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Fraud

Six 2014 Governor Elections: Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Fraud

Richard Charnin
Dec.4, 2015
Update: Dec.7

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

View this summary spreadsheet analysis  of recent Governor elections in KY, MA, MD, IL, FL, WI . Using Cumulative Vote Shares, the focus is on the largest counties in which the change in vote share anomalies indicated fraud. The True Vote  is estimated  as the sum of the 10% cumulative precinct votes in TOP counties and the final votes in Other counties.

….. True 10% CVS….. Final Share
Group Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other
TOP… 57.3 39.6  3.1…. 50.7 46.6 3.1
Other. 40.1 56.3 3.5 …. 40.1 56.3 3.5
Total…51.1 45.6 3.2 …. 46.9 50.1 3.0

In prior CVS analyses,  changes in cumulative vote shares in the six states were calculated from the 25%  mark to the final in ALL counties. The  average 40.7% Democratic  share  in the Other small, strongly Republican  counties declined to 37.8%.

We compare the cumulative vote shares of the TOP counties of each state at the 10% mark to the final result. The 10% mark is a reasonable estimate of the true vote as it encompasses a sufficiently large number of votes in the TOP counties such that the cumulative shares will have reached a “steady state”. We would expect little or no divergence in the trend lines from the 10% mark. But the sharp divergence favoring the GOP from the 10% mark to the final is counter-intuitive and violates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).

10% Dem GOP Final Dem GOP
KY.. 48.2-47.7; 43.8-52.5
IL… 53.7-43.2;  46.4-50.3
FL… 50.2-46.0; 47.6-48.6
WI.. 50.5-48.2;  46.7-52.2
MD. 49.7-48.6;  47.2-51.0
MA.. 54.0-40.8; 47.4-49.3

Note the following Democratic share declines from the 10% mark in the largest counties:
KY – 15 of 15 counties (8.2% decline)
MA – 11 of 14 townships (7.7%)
MD – 10 of 10 (3.8%)
IL – 13 of 15 (9.5%)
FL – 9 of 10 (4.8%)
WI – 10 of 15 (5.8%)

The probability P that 68 of 79 Top counties would move from the Democrat to the GOP is equivalent to the probability of flipping a coin 79 times and getting 68 heads.
P= 6.9E-13 or 1 in 1.4 trillion

This spreadsheet contains a complete index of links to  CVS blog posts and spreadsheets as well as related CVS/True Vote analysis for all elections.

Posted by on December 4, 2015 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

## KY 2015 Governor: Cumulative Vote shares indicate Likely Fraud

KY 2015 Governor: Cumulative Vote shares indicate Likely Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.5, 2015
Latest Update: Jan.2, 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

In the KY 2015 Governor election, Matt BEVIN (R) defeated Jack CONWAY (D) 52.5-43.8%, an 84,000 vote margin. Conway was leading in virtually all pre-election polls by 3 to 5 points yet he had fewer votes than other Democrats on the ticket.

In Kentucky, registered Democrats led Republicans by 53.4-38.8%.

The objective of CVS analysis is to view the effects of county/precinct size on the cumulative vote share trend. Since the largest counties are usually heavily Democratic, the consistent pattern of Republican Governor candidates gaining share from small to large precincts is counter-intuitive. On the other hand, there is virtually no change in vote shares in smaller, heavily GOP counties. This defies political reality and the Law of Large Numbers.

The analysis indicates that the pre-election polls were likely correct and that Conway probably won the election. CVS analysis of the 2014 FL, IL, WI, MA and MD Governor elections exhibited the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares in larger counties. But the KY analysis indicates that the anomaly occurred in many smaller counties.

The Summary sheet displays recorded  final vote shares and cumulative shares for 120 counties at the 10% and 25% CVS mark.

For example, in a county with 20,000 votes, the 25% CVS mark represents the first 5000 cumulative votes, starting from the smallest precinct.

Assuming that the True Vote was at the
– 10% CVS mark, Conway won by 49.5-46.2%.
– 25% CVS mark, Bevin won by 48.3-47.7%.

As in previous CVS analysis, it appears that votes were stolen in Democratic strongholds. In the 25 counties in which he was leading at the 25% mark, Conway’s 11.6% margin declined to 1.5%.  In the other 95 counties, Conway’s -23.3% deficit declined just 1.9% to -25.2%.

Conway’s cumulative vote share declined from the 25% mark to the final in 53 of the TOP 60 counties, a 1 in 3 million probability! In a random process, we would expect a nearly even split. The probability is overwhelming evidence that there is an external fraud factor in the vote tabulation.

Another statistic of interest:  a strong 0.33 Correlation between county vote size and Conway’s vote share margin.

The 120 counties were sorted from largest to smallest to calculate the change in cumulative vote shares from the 25% mark. Conway’s share fell 5.6% from 53.9 to 48.3 in the TOP 15 counties; declined by 2.0% from 40.8 to 38.8 in the other 105 counties.This is a clear indication that votes were flipped in the largest counties.

The CVS method consists of the following steps:
2) sort by precinct total vote
3) calculate a rolling sum of votes for each candidate
4) calculate corresponding cumulative vote shares
5) create the cumulative vote share line graph
6) check for divergence in shares from small to large precincts
7) calculate shares and changes from the 25% mark to the final
For example, view the  Bath County spreadsheet. Conway’s vote share increased from 47.1% at the 25% mark to 49.9% at the final.

Down ballot Anomalies

Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org noted that the higher Democratic vote totals in the down ballot races were a “significant anomaly”.

Bevin (R) won the total recorded vote by 52.5-43.8%.
Lundergan (D) won the Secretary of State by 51.16-48.84%.
Beshear (D) won Attorney General by 50.12-49.88%

Bevin won the Top 25 counties by 49.3-47.0%.
Dem SOS candidate Lundergan won the Top 25 by 53.3-46.7%.
Confirming CVS at 10%, Conway wins by 50.1-46.2% if we add the 6.3% difference in Lundergan’s Top 25 share to Conway’s total 43.8% share.

This sheet shows two-party vote shares for Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State in the largest 25 counties.

The True Vote Model displays various scenarios of returning Obama and Romney voters along with corresponding vote shares.  The model uses two returning voter estimates based on Obama’s 2012 recorded KY vote and   his True Vote.  The model matched the 2015 recorded vote assuming Obama’s recorded KY 2012 vote. It matches the CVS  vote shares at the 10% mark assuming Obama’s True Vote. The Sensitivity analysis tables display Conway’s total vote shares and margins over a range of returning voter turnout and vote share scenarios of returning and new voters.

The cumulative vote share at the  25% mark is the baseline for estimating the  True Vote. But we may want to view changes in vote share in the 0-25% range if we assume that votes were also flipped in the smallest precincts.

Let V25 = the cumulative vote share at the 25% mark and VF = the final recorded share. The adjusted vote share (TV) is given by the formula:

TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF

For example in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. The adjusted True Vote estimate is:
TV = 68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 9.6% + 58.8%
The 10%  mark is also used as an estimate of the True Vote.

TOP 80 counties (895,000 votes – 92% of the total)
Conway led by 50.6-45.2% at the 10% mark.
Conway led by 48.6-47.3% at the 25% mark.
Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 80 by 51.9-44.4%.

TOP 60 counties (829,000 votes – 85% of the total)
Conway led by 51.4-44.3% at the 10% mark.
Conway led by 49.5-46.4% at the 25% mark.
Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 60 by 51.2-45.1%.

TOP 40 counties (735,000 votes – 75% of the total)
Conway led by 50.9-44.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 50.2-46.1%, a 10.1% reduction in Conway’s margin. Assuming Conway had 113,000 (47%) of the remaining 239,000 votes in the other 80 counties. he would win by 50-46%.

TOP 25 counties (625,000 votes – 64% of the total)
Conway led by 51.9-43.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 49.3-47.0%, a 10.3% reduction in Conway’s margin.

TOP 15 counties (518,000 votes – 53% of the total)
Conway led by 53.9-41.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Conway led the Top 15 by 48.3-47.9%, a 11.7% reduction in Conway’s margin.

Given Conway’s 53.9% vote share in the Top 15 counties at the 25% mark, Bevin needed 305,000 (67%) of 455,000 votes in the other 105 counties to match his recorded vote margin (52.5-43.8%). He had 263,000 votes in the 105 counties. Given the anomalies in the TOP 15 counties, it is safe to assume that he had less than 263,000 votes.

Sensitivity Analysis (15 scenarios)
Conway had 40% of the recorded vote in the Bottom 60 counties, but we do not have the CVS for the group. Since we have CVS estimates for the TOP 60, we calculate estimates of Conway’s total vote using a range of vote share estimates for the Bottom 60.
1)  formula, 2) 10% CVS, 3) 25% CVS. He won 12 of the 15 scenarios.
Conway ties Bevin with  40% (the break-even share) in the smallest 60 counties.

41% of the Bottom 60 and
– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 49.9-46.1% (36,800 votes).
– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.2-47.8% (4,700 votes).
43% of the Bottom 60 and
– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 50.2-45.8% (42,600 votes).
– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.5-47.5% (10,500 votes).

Compare the recorded vote shares in the following county subgroups to the cumulative shares at the 25% mark. Conway leads Bevin in all groups from the Top 15 (53% of the total vote) to the Top 80 (92% of the total).

 10% CVS 25% CVS Final KY Counties Conway Bevin Conway Bevin Conway Bevin Top 15 56.4% 38.9% 53.9% 41.9% 48.3% 47.9% Top 25 54.1% 41.3% 51.9% 43.9% 47.0% 49.3% Top 40 52.9% 42.7% 50.9% 44.9% 46.1% 50.2% Top 60 51.4% 44.3% 49.5% 46.4% 45.1% 51.2% Top 80 39.2% 45.2% 48.7% 47.3% 44.4% 51.9% All 120 49.5% 46.4% 47.7% 48.3% 43.8% 52.5%

Jefferson County
A Democratic stronghold, Jefferson is the largest county in KY with 192,391 recorded votes. At the 25% mark (48,000) votes, Conway led in Jefferson by 66-30%. He won the county by 58-39%. The 17% change in margin lowered his vote margin from 69,000 to 31,000. But there may have been vote flipping from zero to 48,000. Conway led by 70-27% after the first 11,500 votes.

Fayette County
There were 69,953 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, Conway led by 60-34%. He won the county by 55-40%. The 11% change lowered his margin from 18,000 to 10,000 votes.

Kenton County
There were 31,453 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, they were tied at 47%. Bevin won the county by 57-39%. The 18% change increased Bevins’ margin from 80 to 5700 votes. Conway led by 53-41% after the first 2,200 votes (7% mark).

Notes:
Cumulative Vote Shares were calculated for the following 2014  elections. All exhibited the same counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares.

2014 KY Senate Election
McConnell (R) defeated Grimes (D) by 56.2-40.7%, a 222,000 vote margin. In Jefferson County, Grimes had 56.1% and won by 35,000 votes Grimes’ vote share was 67.5% at the 10% CVS mark and 64.9% at 25%. But Grimes had just 53.3% from 25% to the final – an 11.6% decline. Assuming Grimes had a 64.9% True Vote, she would have won Jefferson County by 80,000 votes. Conway had 66.0% at the 25% mark and ended with 58.2%, a 7.8% decline. Grimes had 64.9% and ended with 56.1%, an 8.8% decline.

FL, IL, WI, MA, MD all exhibit the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP vote shares in largest counties/precincts. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/cumulative-vote-share-anomalies-indicators-of-rigged-elections/

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies. http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

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

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

Mathematician Kathy Dopp has written a comprehensive essay on the 2014 elections. She is an expert on election audits.

My  interview with Thom Hartmann on the KY election

Compare the 2014 Senate race to the 2015 Governor contest.

Posted by on November 4, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## MA 2014 Governor Election: Cumulative Vote share Anomalies

MA 2014 Governor Election: Cumulative Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Sept.25, 2015

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

A Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis of the 2014 Massachusetts Governor election showed greater discrepancies than the races in WI, FL, MD and IL.  CVS analysis indicated that election fraud was likely in each election. All showed the same counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares. Democrats are strong in large, vote-rich urban areas and Republicans dominate in small, rural areas.

In MA, a strong Democratic state, Baker(R) defeated Coakley(D) by 49.3-47.4%, a 40,000 vote margin out of two million cast.

Note that cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the basis for calculating the change to the final vote. At 25% the Democrats typically lead by a solid margin, especially in heavily populated counties. But it’s all downhill from there.

At the 25% CVS mark, Coakley led by 56.0-40.6%, a 326,000 vote margin. She led in 12 of the 14 townships. But 183,000 votes shifted to Baker, who ended up winning 7 townships. In Middlesex (518,000 votes) Coakley’s share dropped 40,000 votes (7.8%). In Hamden (129,000 votes) her share declined a whopping 17.5% (23,000 votes).

Only three townships (Barnstable, Berkshire and Franklin) did not show an increasing vote share trend for Baker. Coakley dropped 8.2% in the 5 largest townships, but just 2.3% in the five smallest – further confirmation that Democratic votes are stolen in the largest counties. Smaller counties are ignored because a) they have relatively few Democrats and/or b) secure vote counting/auditing systems.

Recall that Coakley also lost a disputed election in 2010. Jonathan Simon wrote: “In the 70 jurisdictions where ballots were hand-counted, Coakley won. In fact, statewide, there was an 8% disparity between hand count to computer count.”

The beauty of CVS analysis is that it is easy to understand. Given the basic premise that Democrats usually do much better than Republicans in heavily populated counties, then we would not expect Republicans to gain share as precinct votes are sorted and summed from the smallest to the largest precincts. This is a red flag and indicates that the election was likely fraudulent.

This spreadsheet contains precinct level votes for the 14 MA townships sorted by precinct size, corresponding graphs and summary table:

Election analysts and activists have presented overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence of systematic election fraud:
a) massive unadjusted exit poll discrepancies (red-shift to the GOP),
b) impossible number of returning voters from the previous election,
c) unadjusted exit poll data changed and forced to match the recorded vote,
d) True Vote Model confirms unadjusted exit polls,
e) election officials refusal to prove vote counts are accurate,
f) proprietary voting machines steal votes using malicious, secret code,
g) refusal of the mainstream media (who fund the pollsters) to inform or investigate,
h) failure of the Democratic party to investigate proves its complicity.

Election Fraud is the THIRD RAIL of American politics.

Election officials won’t reveal the ballots or provide voting machine code. Exit pollsters make impossible adjustments to the actual data in order to conform to the bogus recorded vote. Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later when it’s too late to do anything about it.

In 2012 the National Election Pool of six media giants did not conduct presidential exit polls 19 states. Their stated reason (to save money) was an extreme insult to the collective intelligence of serious analysts. The true reason is that the NEP does not want election analysts to have access to the full set of exit poll data – otherwise they would be able to calculate the unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate vote share and compare it to the unadjusted National Exit Poll. The data would show that the Democratic True Vote is 4-5% higher (“the red-shift”) than the recorded vote.

Given all this, the fact that in Kansas no one is allowed to view the voting machine records should not come as a surprise.

View the CVS county graphs:

Posted by on September 25, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## Florida 2014 Governor: Cumulative Vote Share Analysis Update

Richard Charnin
Sept.20, 2015

Compendium of Links to all of my posts

Florida 2014 Governor CVS Analysis Update

Scott won the recorded vote by 48.6-47.6% (60,000 votes). But the recorded vote was not the same as the True Vote. It never is. Crist won the True Vote. And it wasn’t even close.

I previously downloaded precinct vote data for 12 of Florida’s 67 counties but did not include third-party candidate Wyllie. I realized that I needed all 67 counties and Wyllie’s votes for a thorough analysis. This is it.

This spreadsheet table summarizes the CVS analysis.

Scott gained cumulative vote share from the 25% mark to the final in 22 of the largest 23 counties. Crist gained share in 12 of the smallest 24 counties. This is typical – and counter-intuitive. Democratic cumulative share drops in the largest (Democratic) counties, but is basically constant in small (GOP) counties. This anomaly also occurred in the 2014 WI, IL, MD governor elections, indicating that they were likely stolen also.

There is a strong 0.55 correlation between the Crist county vote shares and county vote totals. The bulk of the fraud occurred in Duval, Orange, Pinellas, Hillsborough counties.

This Exit Poll/True Vote analysis confirms the CVS.

Note: Scott vote gains are from the 25% cumulative vote share mark to the final.
Scott gained 218,000 votes from the 25% CVS mark.
25%: Crist 50.1%- Scott 45.0%
Final: Crist 47.6%- Scott 48.6%

Top 12 counties
25%: Crist 56.4%- Scott 39.7%
Final: Crist 52.6%- Scott 43.8%

55 Other counties
25%: Crist 42.1%- Scott 53.5%
Final: Crist 39.4%- Scott 55.5%

Democratic counties (18)
25%: Crist 58.3%- Scott 37.2%
Final: Crist 54.9%- Scott 41.9%

Top 12 Counties: Total votes; Scott percentage increase from 25% mark; corresponding vote flip
``` County......... Votes; %Incr; Vote flip Dade............517,091 1.2% 6,388 Broward.........466,055 2.3% 10,748 Palm Beach......416,729 1.2% 5,130 Hillsborough....368,266 5.3% 19,566 Pinellas........348,005 5.2% 18,109 Orange..........303,890 8.1% 24,615 Duval...........266,993 10.4% 27,746 Brevard.........218,778 2.3% 5,064 Lee.............208,222 5.1% 10,629 Polk............189,616 4.4% 8,289 Volusia.........173,757 3.2% 5,480 Sarasota........160,008 0.2% 293 ```
View the barchart: Top 10 Counties

Florida Exit Poll
-The Party_ID mix (31% Dem-35% Rep) closely matched the recorded vote.
– Using the 38D-35R% voter registration mix, Crist is a 51-45% winner, confirming the CVS.
``` PARTY-ID........MIX...CRIST.SCOTT.WYLLIE Democrat........38.0% 91.0% 6.00% 3.0% Republican......35.0% 10.0% 88.0% 2.0% Other...........27.0% 48.0% 44.0% 8.0% Total..........100.0% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0% Votes...........5.890 3.006 2.648 .236 ```

The CVS Summary Table compares competitive and non-competitive races.

Posted by on September 20, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## Cumulative Vote Share Anomalies: Indicators of Rigged Elections

Cumulative Vote Shares: Summary and Index

Richard Charnin
August 17, 2015
Updated:  Dec.11, 2015

Compendium of Links to all of my posts

Questions have been raised as to whether the number of elections analyzed is sufficient to draw conclusions. Given that approximately 20 million votes in 13 elections have been analyzed, the results are statistically significant. The analysis is confirmed by other forensic methods (True Vote Model, exit polls) for competitive and non-competitive races.

The analysis of cumulative vote shares (CVS) has revealed a consistent pattern. It is a well-known fact that Democrats are the majority in highly populated urban locations; the largest precincts are usually Democratic. Republicans are heavily represented in rural areas. But in scores of state elections there has been an increase in cumulative Republican vote shares in larger precincts. This anomaly has been noted by PhDs in Kansas and Vanderbilt University.

The basic premise is that Republican increase in cumulative precinct vote shares is counter-intuitive since the Democrats do much better in urban and suburban counties than in rural areas where the GOP is dominant. Precincts in Urban areas contain more voters than rural areas.

Since the GOP gains share in Democratic locations in virtually all of the competitive elections analyzed, it is highly suggestive evidence that Democratic precincts are where the majority of votes are stolen. In competitive elections, the correlation between county/precinct vote-size and the change in Democratic vote share is negative; Democrats lose share as county/precinct size increase. On the other hand, in non-competitive races, the Statistical correlation is close to zero; there is virtually no relationship.

The numerical evidence in each election is clear.
1- In the 15 largest counties, Republican vote share increases from the 25% mark to the final.
2- In the other smaller counties, there is virtually no change in vote share from the 25% mark.
3- In counties where the Democrats led at the 25% mark, their vote share declined significantly.

This post links to CVS blog posts and related spreadsheets. View the CVS Summary graph.

On Nov. 5, 2015 I posted this CVS analysis for the KY Governor race. We see the same counter-intuitive vote shares in the largest counties.

Consider the following changes from the 25% cumulative vote share to the final recorded share  in six Governor elections: Table of CVS changes. Compare the CVS anomalies to the non-competitive races:

SD Gov: Daugaard (R) won  by 70.5-29.4%. Note the slight 0.49% change in vote shares.
KS senate: the Independent lost by 53.2-42.2% but nearly tied the Republican in the Top 15 counties (618,000 votes). In the other counties (264,000 votes), he lost by 64.3-31.3%.

In the Maryland  election, Hogan (R) defeated Brown (D) by 65,000 votes (51.7-47.2%). But Brown won the 301,000 early and 83,000 late votes (absentee and provisional paper ballots) by 53.9-44.5%. Hogan led on Election Day  voting machines (1,319,000 votes) by 52.9-45.3%.

This anomaly also occurred in the 2000-2012 presidential elections. The Democrats did much better in early and late voting. In 2012 Obama led in early voting (40 million) by 55-43%; he led in late voting (11.7 million) by 58-38%. He lost to Romney on Election Day (77 million) by 50.4-47.9%.

Additional proof of Governor election fraud is that Exit polls (check Party_ID) are always adjusted to match the recorded vote.

Other studies
– A Vanderbilt Univ. statistical study of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

– Wichita State University engineering professor and statistician Beth Clarkson has accused three states — Wisconsin, Ohio, & Kansas — of voting irregularities that indicate a tampering of electronic voting machines.

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) anomalies were noticed in a 2005 Ohio special election election favoring Schmidt (R) and in the 2012 GOP primaries favoring Romney.

Michael Collins wrote this article on the 2005 race: “Richard Charnin, posting as TruthIsAll, first noted the pattern with an analysis of the 2005 special election for a vacated seat for Ohio’s 2nd district, in the House of Representatives. The candidates were the liberal-populist Democrat Paul Hackett versus a right-wing Republican, Jean Schmidt. Charnin noticed that Schmidt’s votes and percentages increased substantially from the smallest to largest precincts in that district. This was a patently absurd pattern of vote accumulation since the liberal Hackett wins were in highly conservative counties that rarely voted for any Democrat.

Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted. A review of precinct level results by Charnin on Democratic Underground reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However,the data observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in a graph produced by Democratic Underground poster TruthIsAll, one of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County. Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counter-intuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?

A question can be raised about the difference between turnout (the votes cast) and the actual size of the precinct, which may or may not be a reflection of votes cast. The following graph, also produced by Charnin, answers the question.

As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn’t a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.”

Collins also wrote a two-part article on the 2012 GOP primaries in which  a CVS analysis showed a consistent pattern of votes being flipped to Romney. “Part I of this series suggested that there may well have been massive vote flipping for candidate Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries (Rigged Elections for Romney (10/22/12) The article and the initial research analysis were received broadly. In addition, highly motivated citizens across the country and a team of high school students contacted the authors for help replicating the research in their states. The researchers, Francois Choquet et al., point out that this can be done with their open source techniques.

The basic argument is straightforward. If you look at precinct level voting data arranged from the smallest to the largest precincts, you will see Romney’s gains increasing substantially as the cumulative vote increases. For example, Ohio and Wisconsin show this clearly as do eleven other states presented here. This extraordinary vote gain from smallest to largest precincts is so out of line, that the probability that this would happen by chance alone is often less than 1 out of a number represented by 1 preceded by 100 zeros and a decimal point, a value beneath the statistical package’s lower limits. As a result, the researchers termed the suspected vote flipping for Romney the “amazing anomaly.” (The Amazing Statistical Anomaly)

The research team’s observation of Romney gains based on precinct size is not unique. The anomaly was raised previously concerning the Republican presidential primaries on a political discussion forum.”

This review of Jonathan Simon’s book Code Red mentions CVS analysis:

Simon discusses another kind of evidence pointing to suspicious election outcomes. “The evidence is based on a method called “cumulative vote share” (CVS) analysis in which a graph is made for county results that shows the cumulative vote percentage by adding in precincts according to the precinct size, with the smallest precincts included first. According to statistical theory, the resulting graph should look something like the following result for DuPage County in the 2014 Illinois Governor race. Note: these graphs were produced by Richard Charnin and presented at his web site.

These curves are fairly flat on the right side as the larger precincts are included in the vote totals, which means that vote percentages did not change a great deal with precinct size. This is what is expected. However, some counties showed a result that is unexpected from a statistical viewpoint. Here is the same plot for Peoria County in the same election:

This kind of graph, in which the Republican’s result shows an increasing percentage, while the Democrat’s percentage is decreasing is repeated in many races in many states throughout the country. Again, these patterns are not proof of election fraud, but they raise questions and underscore the need for a transparent, auditable system that can be trusted by the voters. Why the public is not more alarmed about the distressing state of our election system is a question that perplexes and frustrates Simon. Perhaps his book, along with the work of other election integrity activists will eventually rouse the public to demand reform. He expresses these sentiments with eloquence in the book:

“I’d like to think this story will have a happy ending, that history will review in appreciative terms the struggle of a few activists—Cassandras really—to prod leaders and public alike to scale the towering Never-Happen-Here Wall Of Denial so that they can then act together to restore the essential element of observable vote counting to our nation. Most truths eventually come out. All we can do is keep trying in every way possible to help this one find its way into the light.” (CODERED, p. 14)

1 Comment

Posted by on August 18, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## Election Forensics: 2014 WI, FL, IL, MD Governor

Election Forensics: 2014 WI, FL, IL, MD Governor

Richard Charnin
Aug.13, 2015
Updated: Aug.17, 2015
Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy … Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Compendium of Links to all of my posts

An analysis of Exit Polls, True Votes and Cumulative Vote Shares indicates that the 2014 Governor elections in Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois and Maryland were likely stolen.

Although most voters believe that politicians are corrupt, many still cling to the myth that votes are accurately and fairly counted – and that election fraud is a conspiracy theory.

Many voters are still unaware that the unadjusted, pristine exit polls are routinely adjusted to match the recorded vote. The implicit assumption is that the recorded vote represents true voter intent.
Mathematical analysis of discrepancies between unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls versus recorded votes from 1988-2008 confirms systemic fraud to a 100% probability. For a suspicious election, mathematical analysis is a useful way to determine the likelihood of fraud.

Historical Analysis of Election Fraud
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/historical-overview-of-election-fraud-analysis/

Pre-election polls
To set the context,Democrats do much better in Registered Voter (RV) polls than in the Likely Voter (LV) subsets. The reason is simple: voters considered unlikely to vote (mostly newly registered Democrats) are eliminated from the full RV sample. The RV polls are often close to the unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote. On the othr hand, final LV polls published on Election eve are excellent predictors of the bogus final recorded vote.

2012 Presidential Election- Final Forecast and True Vote
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/final-forecast-the-2012-true-vote-election-fraud-model/

In each of the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, in order for the pollsters to force the unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote, they needed to assume an impossible number of returning Republican voters. In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats led the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led by 52-42% in the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the True Vote Model. The 8% margin discrepancy was far beyond the margin of error. But the discrepancy was not due to poor polling design, or exit poll respondents lying about their past vote, their current vote. They would have to lie in response to every one of dozens of questions.

Naysayers and media pundits want voters to believe that the exit polls are always wrong and must be “corrected” to conform to the recorded vote. But they never consider that the unadjusted exit polls are accurate and reflect true voter intent. To the pundits, election fraud is not a factor and the published exit polls accurately reflect voter intent. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

But fraud is not limited to presidential elections. House, senate, governor and local elections have also been compromised by maliciously coded voting machines and voter disenfranchisement.

Who will argue with these points?
1- Unadjusted exit polls are hidden from the public.
3- Voting machine software is proprietary, not open to public viewing
4- Auditing and hand-counting of votes are denied.

Exit polls
Since we cannot view unadjusted exit polls until years later (if at all), we are left with final, adjusted polls. The question “How did you vote in the last election” is no longer asked by the pollsters. An exhaustive analysis of 1988-2008 presidential election unadjusted state and national exit polls shows why the question is no longer asked: it gives an analyst the ability to check the number of returning voters from the prior election. The number provided in the adjusted polls has often proved to be impossible. There were more returning Bush voters in 1992, 2004 and 2008 than were alive. The 2004 election is a case in point. Simple arithmetic proves that it was stolen. It is a fact that…
2- The 2004 National Exit Poll indicates that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. This is obviously impossible; the pollsters had to adjust the number of returning voters to match the 2004 recorded vote.
3- Of the 50.5 million Bush 2000 voters, approximately 2 million died before the 2004 election.
4- Approximately one million Bush 2000 voters did not return in 2004.
Therefore, an estimated 47.5 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. Simple arithmetic shows there had to be at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush 2004 voters.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/fixing-the-exit-polls-to-match-the-policy/

We are forced to analyze adjusted exit polls to look for anomalies. Party-ID is a demographic we can check in lieu of the past vote question. Of course, there is no way to check the Party-ID mix mathematically as we can with the past vote. But it is still useful to see if the percentage mix and corresponding vote shares are plausible based on voter registration and prior elections.

View the Party-ID sensitivity analysis for FL, IL, WI

Florida 2014
True Vote Model

2014 True Vote
2-party Estimated
```2010 True Turnout Votes Mix Crist Scott Sink 52.2% 93.0% 2.463 43.5% 92.5% 7.5% Scott 47.8% 93.0% 2.255 39.9% 6.9% 93.1% ....................... True 52.0% 48.0% ................... Recorded 49.4% 50.6%```

``` ```

```Sensitivity Analysis ........Crist Share of Sink Crist%..89.5% 92.5% 95.5% Scott...Crist Total Share 9.9%....51.9% 53.2% 54.5% 6.9%....50.7% 52.0% 53.3% 3.9%....49.5% 50.8% 52.1% ........Crist Margin (000) 9.9%...211.69 359.47 507.25 6.9%....76.37 224.15 371.93 3.9%.. -58.96 88.824 236.61 ```
In 2010, Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (280,000 votes).There were 3150 respondents (2% margin of error). Of course, the poll was adjusted to match Scott’s 49.6-48.4% recorded 64,000 vote margin. It indicated that 47% of the voters were returning Obama voters and 47% McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida easily. Scott needed 67% of the other 6% who voted (new voters and others who voted for third parties in 2008). These adjustments are highly implausible.

To match the recorded vote, the pollsters assumed a 36D-36R-28I split with Scott winning Independents by 52-44%. In matching the unadjusted exit poll, Sink required a 38D-34R-28I split while winning Independents by 47-43%.

The 2014 election was virtually a carbon copy of 2010. Scott won by 48.2-47.1% (66,000 votes). Crist had 52% of the 2-party True Vote if Sink had the 52.2% share in the unadjusted 2010 exit poll. There were 500,000 more voters than in 2010. Historically, heavy voter turnout is good for the Democrats.

So how did Crist lose by 1%?

Crist did not lose. To match the recorded vote, the pollsters assumed an implausible Party-ID split: 31D- 35R- 34I. Assuming the true mix was 35D- 35R- 30I, Crist won by 181,000 votes (49.2-46.1%). According to the adjusted exit poll (assumed biased for Scott), Crist had 91% of Democrats; Scott had just 88% of Republicans. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. Crist shares were most likely higher.

Florida Exit Poll
(adjusted to match the recorded vote)……….True Vote``` ........Pct Crist Scott Other... Pct Crist Scott Other Dem.....31% 91.0% 6.00% 3.00%... 35.0% 92.0% 5.00% 3.00% Rep.....35% 10.0% 88.0% 2.00%... 35.0% 10.0% 88.0% 2.00% Other...33% 46.0% 44.0% 8.00%... 30.0% 46.0% 44.0% 10.0% Total...99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.30%... 100.% 49.5% 45.8% 4.80% Margin............17,044.............220,392```

``` ```

```Sensitivity Analysis ................Crist Share of Dem Dem Rep.....91.0% 92.0% 93.0% ................Crist Total share 32% 38%.....46.7% 47.0% 47.4% 35% 35%.....49.2% 49.5% 49.9% 38% 32%.....51.6% 52.0% 52.3% ................Crist Margin 32% 38%.....-1.8% -1.2% -0.5% 35% 35%......3.1% 3.8% 4.4% 38% 32%......7.9% 8.7% 9.4% ```

Illinois 2014
True Vote Model
Quinn won the True Vote assuming Obama’s 57% share and an equal 80% turnout of returning Obama and Romney voters.
```2012 Votes Turnout.Vote. Pct.. Quinn. Rauner Other Obama...57.0% 1,686 1,349 38.5% 87.0% 12.0% 1% Romney..42.0% 1,243 994.. 28.4% 7.00% 93.0% 0% Other....1.00% 00030 24....0.7% 50.0% 49.0% 1% DNV (new).......... 1,133. 32.4% 48.0% 48.0% 4% Total...3,019 2,959 3,500..True 1,799 1,642 59 ................................51.4% 46.9% 1.7% .......................Recorded 47.0% 51.9% 0.9% ...............................1,645 1,817 32 True Vote sensitivity analysis Assumption: Quinn wins 48% of DNV/New voters ```

``` Quinn Quinn share of returning Obama voters Share of 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% Romney Quinn Vote Share 9%......51.2% 52.0% 52.7% 8%......50.9% 51.7% 52.5% 7%......50.6% 51.4% 52.2% 6%......50.3% 51.1% 51.9% 5%......50.1% 50.8% 51.6% ........Quinn Margin (000) 9%......143.0 196.9 250.9 8%......123.1 177.0 231.0 7%......103.2 157.2 211.1 6%.......83.3 137.3 191.2 5%.,.....63.4 117.4 171.4 ```

Party-ID heavily favored the Democrats: 43D- 30R- 27I. Quinn had just 85% of Democrats and 29% of Independents. Assuming Quinn had 87% and 44%, respectively, he would have been a 50.8-45.6% winner.

Illinois Exit Poll
(adjusted to match recorded vote)……….True Vote``` .........Pct Quinn Rauner Other...Pct Quinn Rauner Other Dem.....43.0% 85.0% 13.0% 2.00%...43.0% 85.0% 12.0% 1.0% Rep.....30.0% 5.00% 93.0% 2.00%...30.0% 5.00% 93.0% 2.0% Other...26.0% 29.0% 64.0% 7.00%...27.0% 40.0% 52.0% 8.0% Total...99.0% 45.6% 50.1% 3.30%...100.% 49.3% 47.1% 3.6% Margin............164,643.............79,058```

``` ```

```Sensitivity Analysis ............Quinn Share of Dem Dem Rep.........85.0% 86.0% 87.0% ............Quinn Total share 42% 31%.....48.1% 48.5% 48.9% 43% 30%.....48.9% 49.3% 49.7% 44% 29%.....49.7% 50.1% 50.5% ............Quinn Margin 42% 31%....-0.3% 0.6% 1.4% 43% 30%.....1.3% 2.2% 3.0% 44% 29%.....2.9% 3.8% 4.7% ```

Wisconsin 2014
True Vote Model
Burke won the True Vote, assuming that Barrett won the 2-party vote in 2012 by 53-47% and there was an equal returning voter turnout.
```2-party Estimated 2014 2012....True Turnout Votes.... Mix Burke Walker Barrett 53% 93% 1,207,636.......50.7% 92.7% 7.3% Walker. 47% 93% 1,070,923.......45.0% 6.5% 93.5% New..............101,962........4.3% 54.0% 46.0% ...........................True Vote 52.2% 47.8% ............................Recorded 47.1% 52.9%```

``` Burke Share of Barrett Share of.89.7% 92.7% 95.7% Walker...Burke Share 9.5%.....52.1% 53.6% 55.1% 6.5%.....50.7% 52.3% 53.8% 3.5%.....49.4% 50.9% 52.4% .........Burke Margin (000) 9.5%.....98.86 171.3 243.8 6.5%.....34.61 107.1 179.5 3.5%....-29.64 42.81 115.3 ```

Party-ID was 36D- 37R- 27I, as opposed to 39D- 35R- 27I in prior elections. There was heavy voter turnout. Burke had just 43% of Independents. If the mix was actually 38D- 35R- 27I and Burke had 50% of independents, she would have been a 50.2-48.5% winner.

Wisconsin Exit Poll
(adjusted to match recorded vote)……….True Vote``` ........Pct Burke Walker Other...Pct Burke Walker Other Dem.....36.0% 93.0% 6.00% 1.00%...38.0% 94.0% 5.00% 1.0% Rep.....37.0% 4.00% 96.0% 0.00%...35.0% 4.00% 95.0% 1.0% Other...27.0% 43.0% 54.0% 2.00%...27.0% 49.0% 49.0% 2.0% Total...100.% 46.6% 52.3% 0.90%...100.% 50.4% 48.4% 1.3% Margin............135,539..............46,936```

``` ```

```Sensitivity Analysis .............Burke Share of Dem Dem Rep.....93.0% 94.0% 95.0% .............Burke Total share 36% 37%.....48.2% 48.6% 48.9% 38% 35%.....50.0% 50.4% 50.7% 40% 33%.....51.8% 52.2% 52.6% .............Burke Margin 36% 37%.....-2.4% -1.6% -0.9% 38% 35%......1.2% 2.0% 2.7% 40% 33%......4.8% 5.6% 6.4% ```

National Exit Poll (House)
The mix was 35D- 36R- 28I. The Republicans won by 52.0-45.8%. The Democrats had an implausibly low 42% of Independents. If the mix was 36D- 36R- 28I and the Democrats had 50% of the Independents, it would have been a virtual 49% tie.

Cumulative Vote Shares

It is well known fact that Democrats are the majority in highly populated urban locations; Republicans are heavily represented in rural areas. Highly populated precincts are mostly Democratic. But in scores of state elections there has been an increase in cumulative Republican vote shares in larger precincts. This anomaly has been confirmed by PhDs in Kansas and Vanderbilt University.

Consider the following changes from the 25% cumulative vote share to the final recorded share for five Governor elections (all but one competitive) and one senate election.

Top 12 counties, Crist’s 2-party share declined from 58.5% to 54.4%
Note: precinct data is not available for the 55 counties.

-All 72 counties (2.59 million): Burke’s vote share declined from 49.1% to 46.6% (61.1 million)
-Top 15 counties (1.75 million votes): Burke’s vote share declined from 53.4% to 48.6% (76 mil. votes)
-Other 57 counties (0.84 million): Burke’s vote share increased from 40.8% to 42.6% (14.9 mil.)

-All 102 counties (3.63 million): Quinn’s vote share declined from 52.7% to 46.6% (227.7 million)
-Top 15 counties (2.79 million votes): Quinn’s vote share declined from 58.6% to 51.2% (205.8 million votes)
-87 counties (0.83 million): Quinn’s vote share declined from 33.1% to 30.4% (21.9 million)

Maryland
There is no exit poll for the MD governor election.
Hogan (R) defeated Brown (D) 53.88-46.12%
But note this anomaly:
Brown led by 53.9-44.5% in early and late votes (absentee and provisional ballots).
Hogan led election Day voting by 52.9-45.3%.
This also occurred in the 2000-2012 presidential elections. The Democrats always did much better in late voting. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/election-fraud-2012-simple-algebra-of-early-election-day-and-late-recorded-votes/

```MD Early ElectDay Absentee / Provisional Brown 53.74% 45.31% 54.51% ......Early+Prov Elect Day Total Votes 390,340 1,342,837 1,733,177 Brown 53.91% 45.31% 47.20% Hogan 44.46% 52.94% 51.00% ```
Hogan’s cumulative 2-party vote share increased from
50.3% at 25% of the total vote to 51.7% at 50% and 53.6% at 100%.
The 3.3% increase is a conservative estimate of the percentage of votes that may have been switched on Election Day given the 7% discrepancy between Election Day shares vs. Early and Late shares

2005 Special Ohio Congressional Election
Michael Collins has written about the GOP CVS trend in the 2005 Special Ohio congressional election and the 2012 primaries.

“Richard Charnin, posting as TruthIsAll, first noted the pattern with an analysis of the 2005 special election for a vacated seat for Ohio’s 2nd district, in the House of Representatives. The candidates were the liberal-populist Democrat Paul Hackett versus a right-wing Republican, Jean Schmidt. Charnin noticed that Schmidt’s votes and percentages increased substantially from the smallest to largest precincts in that district. This was a patently absurd pattern of vote accumulation since the liberal Hackett wins were in highly conservative counties that rarely voted for any Democrat.

Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted. A review of precinct level results by Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll on Democratic Underground) reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However, the trend observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in the following graph produced by Democratic Underground poster TruthIsAll, one of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost the 54 largest.

The following percentages help elaborate the graph above.
Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

“Aside from the vote counting irregularities, other questions remain. Democrats typically do poorly in rural areas. A city-based attorney who supports the right to choose and refuses to support gay bashing legislation, who calls the President a “chicken hawk” and a “son of a bitch”, this candidate, Paul Hackett, carried the four most rural counties in District 2 by an average 59% to 41% margin. Yet this candidate failed in the more populous areas, where he would be expected to do better”.

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?

A question can be raised about the difference between turnout (the votes cast) and the actual size of the precinct, which may or may not be a reflection of votes cast. The following graph, also produced by TruthIsAll, answers the question. As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn’t a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.”

Voter turnout in the larger precincts in Clermont County matches that in the overall 2nd District. Hackett sweeps rural, lower-income areas, while Schmidt takes those wealthier, more populous.

No Correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout

On the face of it, this is odd. The demographic blue-red maps for the 2004 election showed a positive correlation between population density and Democratic (Kerry) votes. Yet in the 2nd District of Ohio in 2005, the exact opposite was true.

Hackett dominated the least populated areas of the district, while Schmidt prevailed in the more populated areas. One observer said that Hackett performed as strongly as he did in rural District 2 because his handgun carry permit was publicized. This ignores the fact that the National Rifle Association endorsed Schmidt; it also ignores the generally prevailing positive attitude towards gun ownership in Southwest Ohio. This argument has one major problem. The NRA has one of the most disciplined political operations in the country. The members are consistent in following endorsements. The endorsement of Schmidt by NRA did not mean “think about voting for Schmidt” it meant “vote Schmidt.” Opposition from the NRA is a major impediment in rural areas.

2012 primaries
Consistent CVS anomalies in the 2012 GOP primaries favored Romney
Michael Collins wrote about it in a two-part article:
“Part I of this series suggested that there may well have been massive vote flipping for candidate Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries (Rigged Elections for Romney (10/22/12) The article and the initial research analysis were received broadly. In addition, highly motivated citizens across the country and a team of high school students contacted the authors for help replicating the research in their states. The researchers, Francois Choquet et al., point out that this can be done with their open source techniques.

The basic argument is straightforward. If you look at precinct level voting data arranged from the smallest to the largest precincts, you will see Romney’s gains increasing substantially as the cumulative vote increases. For example, Ohio and Wisconsin show this clearly as do eleven other states presented here. This extraordinary vote gain from smallest to largest precincts is so out of line, that the probability that this would happen by chance alone is often less than 1 out of a number represented by 1 preceded by 100 zeros and a decimal point, a value beneath the statistical package’s lower limits. As a result, the researchers termed the suspected vote flipping for Romney the “amazing anomaly.” (The Amazing Statistical Anomaly)

The research team’s observation of Romney gains based on precinct size is not unique. The anomaly was raised previously concerning the Republican presidential primaries on a political discussion forum.

Urban Legend:Implausible 2004 Bush vote shares in Urban counties.
http://www.richardcharnin.com/UrbanLegendLocation.htm
http://www.richardcharnin.com/LocationSizeKerryLandslide.htm

Posted by on August 14, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## Election Fraud Models: Cumulative Vote Shares and True Vote Analysis

Election Fraud Models: Cumulative Vote Shares and True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
Aug. 2, 2015
WEB SITE

CVS and TVM analysis is confirmed by the following studies:
– A statistical study of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

– Wichita State University engineering professor and statistician Beth Clarkson has accused three states — Wisconsin, Ohio, & Kansas — of voting irregularities that indicate a tampering of electronic voting machines. In her recently published journal article, she reviews the statistical anomalies in the three states — including laying out her entire mathematical methodology, inviting others to replicate the study. Clarkson has filed suit trying to gain full access to the ballots for an independent audit of the paper ‘hard copies.’

Five Wisconsin Elections:a pattern of county unit ward vote share anomalies
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/four-wisconsin-elections-a-pattern-of-county-unitward-vote-share-anomalies/

Presidential Elections
Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/historical-overview-of-election-fraud-analysis/

2008 Wisconsin presidential

Posted by on August 2, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## 2014 Illinois Governor Cumulative Vote Shares and Exit Poll Anomalies

2014 Illinois Governor Cumulative Vote Shares and Exit Poll Anomalies

Richard Charnin
July 31, 2015
Updated: Jan. 19, 2016

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

Rauner (R) defeated the incumbent Quinn (D) by 170,000 votes (50.7-45.9%). The following analysis indicates that Quinn may have actually won re-election. The 2014 Illinois Governor spreadsheet contains precinct votes by county, the True Vote Model and adjusted exit poll.

Pre-election Polls: Quinn led the final LV pre-election polls: 45.6-44.8%. LV polls are a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls. Respondents deemed unlikely to vote (most of them Democratic) are eliminated from the full RV sample. RV polls usually match the Unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote Model. LV polls have closely matched the recorded vote.

Cumulative Vote shares: The largest counties all showed Rauner vote shares increasing with cumulative precinct vote totals. This is a major red flag. The results confirm the CVS trend: GOP cumulative shares rise from the smallest to the largest counties, as shown in the graphs. At the 10% CVS mark, Quinn had 54.4%, compared to his final 45.7%.
At the 25%  mark, Quinn had 52.7%.

Exit poll anomalies: The Governor exit poll matched the recorded vote to within 0.4%. It is standard procedure to adjust the poll to match the recorded vote.In the Party-ID category, Democrats led Republicans by 43-30%. But only 85% of Democrats voted for Quinn while 64% of Independents voted for Rauner.

The True Vote Model
Quinn wins by 54.2-42.4%, a 428,000 vote margin.
Assumptions:
1) Obama’s 2012 recorded 57.6% Illinois share
2) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters
3) Quinn has 87% of returning Obama voters
4) Quinn has 7% of returning Romney voters

The built-in sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of voter turnout and vote shares assumptions. The basis is the 2012 presidential election. His share of returning Obama voters ranges from 83-89%; returning Romney voters from 5-9%; new voters from 44-52%. Quinn wins 72 of 75 scenarios. A win probability matrix is displayed for 25 combinations of Quinn’s share of returning Obama and Romney voters. Quinn wins all scenarios.

Cumulative Vote Shares

The famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. He replied: “That’s where the money is”. The Republicans know where to go to steal votes: the large urban counties where Democrats live.

The largest counties showed increasing Rauner vote shares as the cumulative precinct vote totals increased – a major red flag. It is clear that the largest counties were most likely fraudulent. There is little to gain in small counties which are strongly Republican to begin with.

Quinn had 54.4% at the 10% mark which declined to 46.5% (344,000 votes).
His 61.5% share of the 15 largest counties dropped to 51.2%.
His 33.5% share in the other 87 counties dropped to 30.4%.

CVS percentage and vote changes (in thousands)
(25% mark to the final recorded vote)
``` Cook.......... 8% 108 Will......... 15% 29.4 St. Clair.... 15% 11.4 Peoria....... 15% 7.8 Rock Island.. 11% 7.2 Sangamon..... 10% 7.15 Macon......... 9% 3 Winnebago..... 9% 7.1 Lake.......... 6% 12.1 DuPage........ 3% 8.6 ```
There is a -0.37 correlation between county size and Quinn’s vote share change from 25% to the final 100%. Quinn’s share goes down as county size increases.

In Democratic leaning counties (1.7 million votes), Quinn’s share declined from 69.6% to 60.2% (162,000 thousand votes).

Heavily Democratic Cook county had 1.3 million of the 3.6 million state voters.
Quinn had 75% of the first 100 thousand votes in the smallest Cook precincts,
72% of the first 500 thousand,
69% of the first 1 million,
64.8% of the total 1.3 million who voted in Cook county.

Exit Poll Anomalies

The exit poll matched the recorded vote to within 0.4%. But it is standard procedure to adjust the poll to match the vote.The following crosstabs reflect the recorded vote – not the True Vote:

Gender: Quinn led the female vote by 51-44%, an increase from his 49-44% share in the 2010 election.

Race: Minority voters were 9% of the vote, but the vote shares are missing.

Philosophy: Liberals comprised just 25% of the electorate. Quinn’s 80% share declined from 84% in 2010. His share of moderates declined from a winning 7% margin in 2010 to a 12% loss.

Party-ID: Self-identified Democrats led Republicans by 43% – 30%. But only 85% voted for Quinn? Independents voted for Rauner by 64-29%?

Education: Quinn won Post graduates by 55-43% (20% of the vote). But Rauner won College grads by 60-36% (31% of the vote). This is an implausible discrepancy.

Senate Election: Durbin (D) easily won re-election by 55-43%.
But just 82% of Durbin voters voted for Quinn?

Note:
Cumulative Vote Share posts:

– A statistical study  of  precinct  level  data  in  US  presidential  elections  reveals  a  correlation  of  large  precincts  and  increased  fraction  of  Republican  votes.

– Wichita State University engineering professor and statistician Beth Clarkson has accused three states — Wisconsin, Ohio, & Kansas — of voting irregularities that indicate a tampering of electronic voting machines. In her recently published journal article, she reviews the statistical anomalies in the three states — including laying out her entire mathematical methodology, inviting others to replicate the study. Clarkson has filed suit trying to gain full access to the ballots for an independent audit of the paper ‘hard copies.’
http://ivn.us/2015/07/20/report-2014-voting-machine-tampering-likely-wisconsin-ohio-kansas/

Posted by on July 31, 2015 in 2014 Elections

## Kansas 2014 Senate: Cumulative Vote share model confirms Wichita State Statistician

Richard Charnin
April 2, 2015

Beth Clarkson, chief statistician for Wichita State’s National Institute for Aviation Research, filed an open records lawsuit in Sedgwick County District Court as part of her personal quest to find the answer to an unexplained pattern that transcends elections and states. She sued the top Kansas election official Wednesday, seeking paper tapes from electronic voting machines in an effort to explain statistical anomalies favoring Republicans in counts coming from large precincts across the country.  http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html

Thom Hartman interviews Clarkson: http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/something-very-very-wrong-wvoting-machines-ks

To confirm Clarkson’s results, I downloaded 2014 Kansas Senate precinct data for each county. Cumulative vote shares (CVS) were calculated for the five largest: Sedgwick, Johnson, Saline, Shawnee and Wyandotte and the Total for all counties.

Note the Republican state total cumulative share margin is in steady decline for the first 500,000 votes, but then becomes flat. Since the largest counties show the GOP cumulative share increasing with precinct size, it confirms that they were the counties where the anomalies occurred. In other words, the Independent Orman may have caught the Republican Roberts if the trend was not halted by election fraud (vote switching, disenfranchisement, etc.) in the larger (presumably more Democratic) precincts.

Clarkson’s analysis confirms my previous CVS analysis of the 2014 Wisconsin, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota governor elections, all of which showed the same counter-intuitive, mathematically anomalous trend: cumulative vote shares increased in favor of the Republican candidate in large precincts. One would expect that the cumulative vote shares should move slightly in favor of the Democrats as larger (urban) precinct votes are added to the total.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/proving-election-fraud-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

“Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, said she has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate “a statistically significant” pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct. While it is well-recognized that smaller, rural precincts tend to lean Republican, statisticians have been unable to explain the consistent pattern favoring Republicans that trends upward as the number of votes cast in a precinct or other voting unit goes up. In primaries, the favored candidate appears to always be the Republican establishment candidate, above a tea party challenger. And the upward trend for Republicans occurs once a voting unit reaches roughly 500 votes”.

“This is not just an anomaly that occurred in one place,” Clarkson said. “It is a pattern that has occurred repeatedly in elections across the United States.”

Kansas Senate vote totals: Roberts (R) 460,350 – 53.1%;  Batson (L) 37,469 – 4.3%;  Orman (I) 368,372- 42.5%. Unfortunately, precinct data was not available for the Governor race: Davis (D) 401,100-46.1%; Brownback (R) 433,196-49.8%; Umbehr (L)- 35,206-4.0%