Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 2016

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

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

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

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COMPUTERS AND SPREADSHEET TECHNOLOGY

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

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

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

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

MATRIX OF DECEIT

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

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

2000

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

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

 

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

 

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

2004

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

2008

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

2004 Sensitivity Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Simple 2000-2012 Electoral Vote Simulation Model

A Simple 2000-2012 Electoral Vote Simulation Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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