# Category Archives: richard charnin

## Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 2016

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)
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.

 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.