RSS

Category Archives: 2016 election

Election Justice USA: Evidence of Massive Election Fraud in the Primaries

Richard Charnin
April 29, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

An excellent article from “Project Censored 2017”. http://projectcensored.org/clintonistasdnc-illegally-stole-democratic-primaries-bernie-sanders/

On July 25th, 2016, Election Justice USA (EJUSA) released a hundred-page report compiling evidence of massive election fraud during the 2016 Democratic primaries. Election Justice USA is a non-partisan organization that consists of attorneys, technologists, journalists, statisticians, and activists.

Essentially, EJUSA concludes that Bernie Sanders may have lost an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates due to specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Their conclusions? The combination of voter suppression, registration tampering, voter purging, and the manipulation of computerized voting machines, likely cost Bernie Sanders the election.
….
Additionally, Election Justice USA found that the computer counts differed widely from the exit poll projections, but only for the Democratic Party primaries. According to election analyst Richard Charnin, Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

Charnin reported that the probability of this occurring is 1 in 77 billion, which raises the strong possibility of election fraud. Yet, almost no discrepancies were found in the data for the Republican Party primaries. This is particularly remarkable, because the exit polls were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies for both the parties. So, this evidence suggests that the computer counts were only accurate for the Republican Party, while the computer counts for the Democratic Party primaries remain largely unverified.

more….

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 29, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

University of Virginia Study: 20% of Trump Voters were former Obama Voters

Richard Charnin
April 29, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Larry Sabato is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. 
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/larry-sabato-20-trump-voters-former-obama-voters-video/

Sabato said: “This is the largest study of just Trump voters… The first thing that is perfectly clear is that Trump has not lost almost none of his backers, which includes the soft Trump voters. He’s still got 92-93% of them supporting him. It’s also true he hasn’t gained many people from the other side. We live in a very polarized era… What I found fascinating, nobody else has identified this, 20% of Trump voters actually voted for Obama either in 2008 or in 2012 or in both years. In other words a fifth of his vote came from Obama voters”.

I calculated Trump’s vote share based on the above: If 20% of Trump voters were former Obama voters, then the vote share calculation indicates that Trump won by an estimated 48.3-42.9% (7 million votes), confirming the True Vote Model: Trump by 48.5-44.3% (351-187 EV).

2012….. Pct……Trump Clinton Other……..Trump share
Obama…. 51.1%…. 19%….75%….. 6%……….9.7% 20% <<<<
Romney… 47.2%…. 80%…..8%…..12%……..37.8% 78%
Other…….. 1.7%….. 48%….46%……6%……….0.8% 2%

Total….. 100%…..48.3%. 42.9%…8.8%…..48.3% 100%

TRUE VOTE MODEL

Includes estimated 2012 voter turnout in 2016 and new voters.
Assumption: 18.3% of Trump voters were returning Obama voters
True Vote share: Clinton 42.8%, Trump 47.8%, Other 9.4%
True Vote: Clinton 58.3 million, Trump 65.1, Other 12.8
Recorded share: Clinton 48.3%, Trump 46.2%, Other 5.5%
Recorded Vote: Clinton 65.7 million, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6
(9.7 million flip in margin (7.1%) from the Recorded to True vote)
Returning and new voters
Clinton Trump Other Trump%
Obama 44.6 11.9 3.0 18.3%
Romney 4.6 44.1 8.6 67.8%
Other 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.4%
DNV (new) 8.1 8.1 1.0 12.5%
Total 58.3 65.1 12.8 100.0%
2012 Mix Clinton Trump Other Turnout
Obama 43.66% 75% 20% 5% 94%
Romney 42.09% 8% 77% 15% 98%
Other 1.54% 45% 45% 10% 95%
DNV (new) 12.70% 47% 47% 6%
True Share 100% 42.8% 47.8% 9.4%
 True Vote 136.2 58.3 65.1 12.8
Recorded 136.2 65.7 62.9 7.6
Change -7.4 2.2 5.2
Trump% Obama 18% 19% 20% 21% 22%
Trump% Romney Trump share
79% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7% 49.1% 49.5%
78% 47.4% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7% 49.1%
77% 46.9% 47.4% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7%
76% 46.5% 47.0% 47.4% 47.8% 48.3%
75% 46.1% 46.5% 47.0% 47.4% 47.8%
Clinton share
79% 42.8% 42.4% 41.9% 41.5% 41.1%
78% 43.2% 42.8% 42.4% 41.9% 41.5%
77% 43.7% 43.2% 42.8% 42.3% 41.9%
76% 44.1% 43.6% 43.2% 42.8% 42.3%
75% 44.5% 44.1% 43.6% 43.2% 42.7%
Trump % margin
79% 5.0% 5.8% 6.7% 7.6% 8.5%
78% 4.1% 5.0% 5.9% 6.7% 7.6%
77% 3.3% 4.2% 5.0% 5.9% 6.8%
76% 2.4% 3.3% 4.2% 5.1% 5.9%
75% 1.6% 2.5% 3.3% 4.2% 5.1%
Trump vote margin
79% 6.77 7.96 9.15 10.33 11.52
78% 5.62 6.81 8.00 9.19 10.38
77% 4.47 5.66 6.85 8.04 9.23
76% 3.33 4.52 5.71 6.89 8.08
75% 2.18 3.37 4.56 5.75 6.94

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/why-the-recorded-vote-and-unadjusted-exit-polls-are-wrong/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

MY COMMENTS TO THE MSM ON THE RIGGING OF THE 2016 PRE-ELECTION POLLS

The MSM just interviewed the authors of a new book on the reasons for Clinton’s loss.  I commented to Chris Mathews and Brian Williams of MSNBC as well as FOX and CBS on how MSM pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for Clinton.

FYI: Your guests may have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to the final pre-election polls which were biased for Clinton. The Democratic Party-ID share was overstated at the expense of Independents who went solidly for Trump. In addition, there is strong evidence that votes were stolen from Jill Stein – by Clinton.

The 2016 Model projected Trump’s 306 RECORDED EV. But he actually had approximately 351 TRUE EV after adjusting for late undecided voters. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Vote Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote Model: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Note: I exactly forecast the RECORDED EV in the last three elections: 365, 332, 306. In each case the winner did better in the True Vote than the Recorded vote.

Here is the proof: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
Mar. 15, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
Feb. 25, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by on February 25, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
Feb. 11, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

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

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

Note that the following calculation is just an approximation.

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

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

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

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

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 11, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

HISPANIC VOTER TURNOUT TREND

Richard Charnin
Feb. 10, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis