RSS

Category Archives: True Vote Models

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

This post will be an historical overview of how major advances in technology prove 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

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. I programmed the 7094 IBM mainframe , 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. I was hired by Merrill Lynch on Wall Street as a manager of software development in Investment Banking. I continued to program in FORTRAN- this time for financial models.

In the late 70s, the personal computer became available. They were considered as toys (myself included) until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden, I could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. When Lotus 1-2-3 became available in 1982, it had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately began to convert my financial FORTRAN programs to spreadsheets – and added graphics capabilities. I continued to use Lotus as a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations until 1995 when I switched to Excel (which was used along with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models).

THE MATRIX DEFINITION

A matrix is just a table of numbers. The table consists of elements in cells (column, row). Matrix algebra is an advanced subject which deals with mathematical operations performed on matrices.  The functions are available in spreadsheets.

We are only interested in  basic arithmetic operations; they are sufficient to prove election fraud. In traditional programming, matrices are expressed as arrays.

Adjusted Exit Polls: The Matrix of Deceit

This is how the actual exit poll results were changed to conform to the recorded vote. The pollsters changed the true results in all exit polls.

1) They ignored the respondents answer to the question: “Who did you just vote for?”
2) They changed all unadjusted exit poll crosstabs including the Smoking Gun: “How Did You Vote in the last election?”

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

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.

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%

 

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

 

Final 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

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and  State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. But he lost the Final National Exit Poll which was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

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

 

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

 

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 with 61% (a 30 million vote margin) and the  State Exit Poll aggregate with 58% (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.

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

 

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

 

Unadjusted 2008 NEP
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

 

Final 2008 NEP
(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted 2004 2008 impossible no. returning Bush 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

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

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

  Kerry share of returning Gore voters
Share of 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
Bush 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    
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
2004 Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
Bush   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%
MoE : 3.0% Win Prob
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%
 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2014
Updated Sept.30, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and another million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there were at most 47.5 million returning Bush 2000 voters. The National Exit poll indicated that 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. The pollsters had to create at least 5 million phantom Bush voters. Of course, this made no sense. But who questioned it? Who even knew about it? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.

In 2010, Walker won by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. in 2012, he won the recall by 171,105 votes with 53.1%. But the True Vote Model (TVM) showed that he needed 23% of Obama returning voters to match the recorded vote. That is extremely implausible – and a red flag. It’s further evidence that Barrett won the election. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/the-walker-recall-true-vote-model-implausible-vote-shares-required-to-match-the-vote/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=t4pqdOMFhfNwaIq8ELOAg_w#gid=32

2014 Wisconsin Governor
Walker won with a 52.9% share. In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll showed that returning 2012 Barrett voters comprised 35% of 2014 voters compared to 50% for returning Walker voters. The 15% spread is implausible. Compare it to Walker’s 7% recorded 2012 margin and Barrett’s estimated 6% True Vote margin (a whopping 21% discrepancy).Assuming a feasible Barrett 45/Walker 41% returning voter mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%.

In the “How Voted in 2012” crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). How many of the missing 14% voted for Burke? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=2079407084

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

 

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

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.14, 2014
Updated: Sept.28, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

For the first time since 2000, I did not plan on forecasting the 2014 election or run a post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed; the media and congress refuse to investigate. They continue to promote the myth that the recorded vote is the True Vote and Election Fraud does not exist.

But I decided to analyze a few close, disputed elections.

In the 2014 FL Governor election, Scott(R) defeated Crist(D) by 64,145 votes out of 5.95 million cast (48.1-47.1%). Third-party candidates had 4.8%.

In 2010, Scott defeated Sink(D) by 62,000 votes (49.6- 48.4%). Sink won the unadjusted exit poll (3,150 respondents): 50.8-45.4-3.8%. The margin of error was 2%.

The fact that the 2014 2-party share exactly matched 2010 is a red flag by itself. Crist won the 2-party True Vote by 52.0-48.0%.

Cumulative Vote Share analysis in the largest counties indicated the usual pattern of increasing GOP vote shares in larger (generally Democratic) precincts:

The key to understanding that elections are rigged is to take a close look at the exit polls. All exit poll crosstabs must be adjusted in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote. In the “How did you Vote in the Last Election” question, there are two sets of adjustments: a) how returning voters from the prior election voted and b) how returning and new voters in the current election voted. Generally, the most flagrant adjustment is made to the percentages of how they voted in the prior election.

Since unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, we only have the adjusted published polls. The pattern never changes: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure. The pollsters claim the matching is to correct polling error. Pollsters and media pundits want the public to believe the myth: recorded vote count is pristine and there is zero fraud. But there is no longer any doubt. Election fraud is pervasive and systemic.

The 2014FLGov spreadsheet contains the following worksheets:
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2010 Florida Exit Poll (‘2010 FL EP’)
– 2014 Florida Exit Poll (‘2014 FL EP’)
– 2014 FL County Vote vs. 2010 (“Counties’)
– 2014 True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)
– 2014 Florida Cumulative Vote Shares

Cumulative Vote Share analysis shows that Scott gained vote share going from small to large precincts in virtually all counties. This is counter-intuitive. The largest precincts are generally in Urban areas which are heavily Democratic.

................ Crist cumulative precinct vote shares
County..........Votes...25.% 50.% 75.% 100% % Chg VoteChg

Brevard.........207,638 45.6 44.2 44.5 43.8 -1.8 -3,737
Broward.........457,344 71.8 71.0 71.0 69.7 -2.1 -9,604
Dade............509,738 60.9 60.7 60.4 59.8 -1.1 -5,607
Duval...........257,773 56.0 46.5 45.1 43.3 -12.7 -32,737
Hillsborough....350,022 57.4 55.7 54.1 51.5 -5.9 -20,651

Lee.............201,416 45.2 43.1 41.6 39.4 -5.8 -11,682
Marion..........112,571 45.9 44.2 41.9 41.2 -4.7 -5,291
Orange..........292,584 64.6 60.1 58.6 56.2 -8.4 -24,577
Palm Beach......407,070 61.7 62.4 61.9 60.6 -1.1 -4,478
Pinellas........328,201 61.2 58.9 56.7 56.0 -5.2 -17,066

Polk............177,609 48.6 47.4 46.4 44.7 -3.9 -6,927
Volusia.........165,064 51.2 51.8 49.4 48.1 -3.1 -5,117

Total.........3,467,030 58.7 56.8 55.8 54.4 -4.3 -147,475


County CVS graphs
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17naKWzaLDkRaYfgiTAJfkJ5pFDoI_rv4HXfXcLyD4Ls/edit#gid=318098598

2014 NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of crosstabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.6% of the recorded vote because it was forced to match the vote. The exit poll margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of a 0.6% deviation is close to zero. The deviation illustrates that the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure – and unscientific. It’s no different then a serial thief daring the police to stop him. But they never do even though they have the statistical evidence of fraud and a signed confession.

Florida 2010 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Scott won by 49.6-48.4%, a 62,000 vote margin. But Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 283,000 votes (50.8-45.4%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy). There were 3,150 exit poll respondents and a 2.3% poll margin of error. Sink had a 99% win probability. But the poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

Just as in presidential election exit polls, the returning 2008 voter percentages were implausible. In the ’Voted in 2010′ crosstab, 47% of 2010 voters were returning Obama voters and 47% were returning McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida 2008 unadjusted exit poll by 6% So how does one explain the equal 47% mix of returning voters? This is the standard ‘tell’: the mix is adjusted to maximize the Republican vote and minimize the Democratic vote. The mix and the vote shares were changed to reflect the 2008 unadjusted exit poll.
Sink is the winner of the True vote by 50.8-45.4%

2010 Unadjusted Exit Poll
................Sink Scott Other
Respondents.....1600 1431 119
Poll Share......50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Poll Vote.......2683 2400 200
Margin..........283

2010 True Vote
2008...........Vote Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........989 49.7% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........848 42.6% 7% 87% 2%
Other...........220 6.0% 53% 44% 3%
DNV..............34 1.7% 53.0% 44.0% 3%
True Vote.......1991
Respondents....1991 100% 50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Votes...................5282 2683 2399 200
Margin 195

2010 Exit Poll (adjusted to match recorded vote)
2008............Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........47% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........47% 11% 87% 2%
Other............3% 31% 67% 2%
DNV..............3% 31% 67% 2%
Total..........100% 48.4% 49.6% 2.0%
Votes.................. 2556 2620 106
Margin -64

Florida 2014 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
The How Voted in 2010 crosstab was not listed, but we have the True Vote model. The returning voter mix was changed to reflect the 2010 unadjusted exit poll. Crist is the winner of the True vote by 52-48%.

Party ID
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

Counties
There were nearly 500,000 more voters in 2014 than 2010. Presumably, this increase in turnout would be expected to help Crist. As mentioned, Sink won the True Vote in 2010. But Scott’s 2014 margin increased by 5,000 votes. This is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The model data was updated for 2014 using 2010 returning and new voters. The assumptions for the base case scenario:
1) Sink had a 52.2% True Vote share in 2010
2) In 2014, there was a 93% turnout of living 2010 voters
3) Crist had 92.5% of returning Sink voters
4) Crist had 6.9% of returning Scott voters
5) Crist had 54% of new voters

In the Base Case scenario, Crist had a 52.0% share and won by 224,000 votes. The Sensitivity analysis shows Crist’s total vote share and margins over a range of 18 scenarios. He won 17.

1988-2008 Presidential Elections
A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.19, 2014
Update:Nov.21, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

For the first time since 2000, I decided not to do 2014 election forecasting and post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing changed, the media remains mute on the fraud and congress refuses to do anything about it.

I  worked closely with Wisconsin election reform activists on the 2011 Supreme Court election, the state recalls and Walker recall.   I was asked to look into the election and felt like Al Pacino in Godfather III: Just when I thought I was out of it, they pulled me back in again. Since I decided to bypass 2014, I did not even know who was running against Walker.

The key to understanding how elections are rigged is to study the exit polls.The pattern keeps repeating: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It’s a fact. The pollsters admit it, but claim it is to correct the errant polls.  The assumption is that the recorded vote count is pristine and there is no fraud. At least that is what the pollsters and pundits would like us to believe. But there is no longer any doubt: elections are routinely fraudulent.

Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, so we are left with the adjusted polls (national, state, governor) for clues. In order to adjust the exit poll to match the recorded vote, the returning voter mix from the previous election and/or each candidate’s share of returning and new voters must be changed. All crosstabs must be adjusted. I have stated this often in posts as far back as 2004 as well as in my books.

This is the direct link to the 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote analysis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=841488888

The 2014 election was 2012 deja vu all over again.

To analyze the 2014 Wisconsin Governor race, I created the spreadsheet 2014WIGov. It contains the following worksheets (sheet names in quotes):
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Gov. Exit Poll (‘WI Exit Poll’)
– 2014 Wisconsin County Vote vs. 2012 Recall Vote (“Counties’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)

I also created a spreadsheet which tracks cumulative vote shares for each county, based on increasing unit/ward voting size. The odd pattern of increasing Walker vote shares is similar to the 2012 recall. It is indicative of fraud, especially in Milwaukee and Racine counties. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/

2014 National Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of cross tabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.1% of the recorded vote. The theoretical margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of the 0.1% adjusted exit poll deviation from the recorded vote is close to zero – only because the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure -and obviously unscientific. It’s like a serial thief daring the police to stop him, but they don’t even though they have his fingerprints.

WI Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Like virtually all exit polls, it was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning voters to favor the GOP. Returning Walker voters comprised 50% of the 2014 vote total while Barrett voters at 35%. The 15% differential is much higher than Walker’s 7% recorded margin in 2012. But consider that Barrett likely won the 2012 True Vote by 6% – and a whopping 21% discrepancy in margin. Just as in every presidential exit poll, the returning voter percentages were implausible. How could there be a 15% excess of returning Walker 2012 voters over returning Barrett voters?

In the “How Voted in 2012” cross tab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). The result is a Walker landslide by 55.4-43.1%, a whopping 12.3% margin. But he had a bogus 52.9% recorded share. The two basic clues that the 2014 election was fixed are obvious from the adjusted exit poll:
1) The 2012 returning voter mix is highly implausible.
2) Vote shares for 14% of the 2014 electorate are not available.

The standard election fraud “tell” is that the returning voter mix has been adjusted to increase the Republican share. When the mix is changed to a feasible Barrett/Walker 45/41% mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%

WISCONSIN 2014 EXIT POLL (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER..........TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Male............49% 39.0% 60.0%
Female..........51% 54.0% 45.0%
Total.............. 46.7% 52.4% Walker Margin:5.7%
Recorded........... 47.1% 52.9% Walker Margin:5.8%
Difference........ -0.46% -0.54% Difference: 0.08%

HOW VOTED IN 2012 RECALL (suspicious turnout in 2014 and 14% na)
RECORDED VOTE..TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Tom Barrett.....35% 96.0% 4.0%
Scott Walker....50% 5.0% 94.0%
Other na.........3% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
DNV na..........11% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
TOTAL...........99% 43.1% 55.4% Walker Margin:12.3%

TRUE VOTE......TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Tom Barrett...... 45% 96.0% 4.0% (set to plausible 45/41 returning voter mix)
Scott Walker......41% 5.0% 94.0%
Other..............3% 50.0% 50.0%
DNV...............11% 52.0% 48.0% (adjust new voter shares)
TOTAL..........100% 52.5% 47.1% Burke Margin:5.4%

Counties
In Wisconsin 2014, we see that there was a significant 0.24 correlation between Walker’s 2014 county votes and turnout (it was 0.28 in the 2012 recall). This measure indicates that as turnout increased, so did Walker’s vote share. But it is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The TVM was used in 2012 and prior elections. The data is updated for 2014 using 2012 returning voters and 2014 vote share percentages.

In the Base Case scenario, Burke had 52.2%  and won by 107,000 votes.

1) Barrett had a 53% True Vote in the 2012 recall
2) 93% turnout of 2012 living voters in 2014
3) Burke had 92% of returning Barrett voters
4) Burke had 7% of returning Walker voters
5) Burke had 54% of new voters.

The Sensitivity analysis shows Burke’s total vote shares and margins for alternative scenarios of vote share and turnout of 2012 voters.

Cumulative Vote Shares
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdEhqXzdlbUhZT1Vic3RSQmU2cUVkc3c&usp=sheets_web#gid=12

In 2014, Burke’s total vote dropped by 61,500 (2.57%) from the 25% mark.

County size
Burke’s share fell by 4.8% in the largest 15 counties, but increased by 2.3% in the middle 15 and 0.67% in the 15 smallest. This is a strong indicator of fraud in the biggest counties.

Democratic strongholds
Burke’s share fell by 6.5% in counties in which she was leading the 25% vote mark. This is an indicator of fraud in Democratic strongholds.

Correlation
There was a -0.37 statistical correlation between the change in Burke’s county shares and county vote size. This is another indicator of fraud in the biggest counties (primarily Milwaukee).

Democratic Vote Share Trend - 15 counties
Election.......Votes...25%.... 50%... 100% Change
Average...........1532 56.06% 53.83% 50.13% 5.94%

2008 Obama........1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07% 5.31%
2010 Feingold.....1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69% 6.02%
2010 Barrett......1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23% 6.81%
2012 Barrett......1551 54.24% 52.11% 48.14% 6.10%
2014 Burke........1511 53.96% 52.22% 48.50% 5.46%

Vote change.....Vote....25%.....50%.....75%.....100%
Votes...........-61.49 1,174 1,158 1,133 1,113
% Change.......-2.57.......... -0.67 -1.07 -0.84

........Vote...25%...50%...75%...100%..Correl..% Change
Total...2,385 49.22 48.55 47.48 46.65 -0.37 -2.57
Top 15..1,573 53.45 51.99 50.20 48.61 -0.23 -4.83
Mid 15....242 41.03 41.22 41.58 43.10 0.01 2.07
Low 15.....73 43.53 42.64 42.67 43.72 0.11 0.20
Dem >50%..935 67.33 65.18 62.72 60.82 -0.35 -6.51

Historical Presidential Exit Polls

A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , ,

Summary: 2004-2012 Election Forecast; 1968-2012 True Vote Model

Summary: 2004-2012 Election Forecast; 1968-2012 True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
Sept. 14, 2014

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

1988 (24 unadjusted state exit polls)
Recorded Vote: Bush 53.4-Dukakis 45.7%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Dukakis 49.8-49.1%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Dukakis 51.6-47.3%
True Vote Model: Dukakis 50.2-48.8% https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=13

1992
Recorded Vote: Clinton 43.0-Bush 37.4%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Clinton: 46.3-33.5%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Clinton: 47.6-31.7%
True Vote Model: Clinton: 51.1-30.4% https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=17

1996
Recorded Vote: Clinton 49.2-Dole 40.8%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Clinton 52.2-37.5%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Clinton 52.7-37.0%
True Vote Model: Clinton 53.6-36.5% https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=16

2000
Recorded Vote: Gore 48.4-Bush 47.9%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Gore 48.5-46.3%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Gore 50.8-44.4%
True Vote Model: Gore 51.5-44.7% https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/unadjusted-state-exit-polls-indicate-that-al-gore-won-a-mini-landslide-in-2000/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=4

2004
Recorded Vote: Bush 50.7-Kerry 48.3%, 255 EV
Election Forecast Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Kerry 51.7-47.0%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Kerry 51.1-47.6%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: Kerry 53.6-45.1%, 364 EV
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

2008
Recorded Vote: Obama 52.9-McCain 45.6%, 365 EV
Election Forecast Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Obama 61.0-37.2%
Unadjusted State Exit Polls aggregate: Obama 58.0-40.5%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2012
Recorded vote: Obama 51.0-Romney 47.2%, 332 EV
Election Forecast (2-party): Obama 51.6-Romney 48.4%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
True Vote Model: Obama 55.2%, 380 EV

Unadjusted National Exit Poll unavailable
Unadjusted State Exit polls unavailable (19 states not polled)

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=8

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:

Presidential Summary

Election.. 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Average
Recorded Vote
Democrat.. 45.7 43.0 49.3 48.4 48.3 52.9 47.9
Republican 53.4 37.4 40.7 47.9 50.7 45.6 46.0

Unadjusted Aggregate State Exit Polls (weighted by voting population)
Democrat.. 50.3 47.6 52.6 50.8 51.1 58.0 51.7
Republican 48.7 31.7 37.1 44.4 47.5 40.3 41.6

Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Democrat.. 49.8 46.3 52.6 48.5 51.7 61.0 51.7
Republican 49.2 33.5 37.1 46.3 47.0 37.2 41.7

1988-2008 Red-shift Summary (274 exit polls)
The following table lists the
a) Number of states in which the exit poll red-shifted to the Republican,
b) Number of states which red-shifted beyond the margin of error,
c) Probability of n states red-shifting beyond the MoE,
d) Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,
e) Democratic recorded share,
f) Difference between Democratic exit poll and recorded share.

Year RS.. n>MoE Probability..Exit Rec'd Diff
1988 21.. 12... 2.5E-12..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may have won
1992 45.. 27... 1.1E-26..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton landslide
1996 44.. 19... 2.5E-15..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton landslide
2000 34.. 17... 4.9E-13..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore win stolen
2004 42.. 23... 3.5E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry landslide stolen
2008 46.. 37... 2.4E-39..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama landslide denied

Total 232 135… 3.7E-116….. 51.7 47.9 3.8
* 274 exit polls (24 in 1988, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections)

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have won
a) 30% of returning Gore voters, b) 90% of returning Bush voters, c) both (a) and (b).

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Given it was his True Vote, he had how many Electoral Votes?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 12 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1, b) 2, c) 3 of the 12 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure and
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the unadjusted National exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll crosstab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) how voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final pre-election approval rating was 48%, but it was 53% in the adjusted National Exit Poll. The discrepancy was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free vote. The TVM utilizes final exit poll shares but estimates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 6a 7c 8c 9c 10c 11c 12a 13c 14c 15a 16c 17c 18c 19c 20c 21c 22c 23g 24c 25e

 

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

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2013

According to the adjusted 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls, there were millions more returning Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 voters from the previous election than were still living – a mathematical impossibility and proof of election fraud beyond any doubt.

It’s obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than the number who voted in the prior election. Approximately 5% of voters pass in the four years between elections. ALL exit polls are adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote. It’s no secret. It’s the standard, stated policy of the National Election Pool. The insane rationale for the forced match is that the recorded vote is always fraud-free. But the real reason is to hide the extent of fraudulent vote miscounting.

The adjusted, published exit poll is a Matrix of Deceit. The True Vote Model (TVM) replaces the impossible, forced adjustments made to the unadjusted exit polls with a feasible, plausible estimate of returning voters.

The TVM applies to all elections, not just national. Presidential elections are used in this analysis as they are well-known; historical data is readily available. The TVM has been used to analyze congressional, senate and recall elections – and has uncovered strong evidence of fraud.

A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) is an application based on Matrix Algebra. The key to understanding the theory is mathematical subscript notation. The actual mathematics is really nothing more than simple arithmetic.

The model is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). Calculation methods are the following:

1- National Exit Poll
(returning voters (and vote shares) adjusted to match the fraudulent recorded vote)

True Vote Methods: Returning voters based on the previous election
2- recorded vote
3- votes cast (including allocated uncounted votes)
4- unadjusted national exit poll
5- True Vote

The National True Vote Model is based on total votes cast in the previous and current election. The True Vote Model (TVM) is a set of linear equations which calculate each candidate’s share of a) previous election returning voters and b) new voters who did not vote in the previous election.

National Exit Poll vote shares were used to calculate the True Vote in each election- except for 2004. At 12:22am, 13047 exit poll respondents indicated that Kerry was a 51-48% winner. The final 613 respondents (13660) and the returning 2000 voter mix were both adjusted in order to match the recorded vote (Bush 51-48%). Both sets of adjustments were impossible. It was only years later that the complete 2004 unadjusted exit poll was released. It showed that Kerry won the 13660 respondents by 51-47.5%.

The US Vote Census provides an estimate of the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.

The 1988-2012 State True Vote Model is based on returning state voters. The Governor, senate and congressional True Vote models work the same way.

Sensitivity Matrix: alternative scenarios
These tables gauge the sensitivity of the total candidate vote shares to changes in their shares of returning and new voters.

In 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). However, at the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline (13047 respondents), Kerry had 91% of returning Gore voters, 10% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters. In this base case scenario, Kerry had a 53.6% True Vote share and 10.7 million vote margin.

Sensitivity analysis indicates that Kerry won all plausible (and implausible) scenarios. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters to win the fraudulent recorded vote.

Adjusting the base case vote shares to view worst case scenarios:
1) Kerry has 91% (no change) of returning Gore voters, just 8% of returning Bush voters and 53% of New voters. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.1% and a 7.2 million winning margin.

2) Kerry has just 89% of returning Gore voters, 8% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters (no change). Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.0% and a 6.9 million margin.

3) Assume the base case vote shares, but change the 98% returning 2000 voter turnout rate to 94% for Gore and 100% for Bush. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.7% and a 8.5 million margin.

4) Assume the base case 98% turnout of returning Gore and Bush voters and 91% Kerry share of returning Gore voters. To match the fraudulent recorded vote, Bush needed 61% of New voters compared to his 41% exit poll share. He also needed 96% of returning Bush voters compared to his 90% exit poll share. The required shares easily exceeded the 2% margin of error. The probabilities are infinitesimal.

Returning voters
The number of returning voters (RV) is estimated based on previous election voter mortality (5%) and an estimated turnout rate (TR).

Let TVP = total votes cast the in previous election.
Let TVC = total votes cast in the current election.

In 2000, 110.8 million votes (TVP) were cast. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years. In the base case, we assume equal 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. We calculate (RV) returning 2000 voters:
RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR
RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98

In 2004, 125.7 million votes were cast. The number of new 2004 voters (TVN) is the difference between 2004 votes cast (TVC) and returning 2000 voters (RV):
TVN = TVC – RV
TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2

Matrix notation
V (1) = returning Democratic voters
V (2) = returning Republican voters
V (3) = returning other (third-party) voters
RV = V (1) + V (2) + V (3) = total returning voters
V (4) = TVC – RV = number of new voters.

Calculate m (i) as the percentage mix of total votes cast (TVC) for returning and new voters V(i):
m (i) = V (i) / TVC, i=1, 4

Let a (i, j) = candidates (j=1,3) vote shares of returning and new voters (i=1,4).

True Vote calculation matrix
Vote Mix Dem Rep Other
Dem m1 a11 a12 a13
Rep m2 a21 a22 a23
Oth m3 a31 a32 a33
Dnv m4 a41 a42 a43

The total Democratic share is:
VS(1) = ∑ m(i) * a(i, 1), i=1,4
VS(1)= m(1)*a(1,1) + m(2)*a(2,1) + m(3)*a(3,1) + m(4)*a(4,1)

Republican share:
VS(2)= m(2)*a(1,2) + m(2)*a(2,2) + m(3)*a(3,2) + m(4)*a(4,2)

Third-party share:
VS(3)= m(3)*a(1,3) + m(2)*a(2,3) + m(3)*a(3,3) + m(4)*a(4,3)

Mathematical vote share constraints
Returning and new voter mix percentages must total 100%.
∑m (i) =100%, i= 1, 4

Candidate shares of returning and new voters must total 100%.
∑a (1, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (2, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (3, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (4, j) =100%, j=1, 3

Democratic + Republican + third-party vote shares must total 100%.
∑ VS (i) = 100%, i=1,3

Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (match recorded vote)
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 45.25 37% 90% 10% 0.0% 93.4%
Bush 52.59 43. 9.0 91. 0.0 109.7 (impossible)
Other 3.67 3.0 64. 14. 22. 97.7
DNV. 20.79 17. 54. 44. 2.0 -
Total 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 101.4%

2004 True Vote Model
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 52.13 41.5% 91% 9.0% 0% 98%
Bush 47.36 37.7 10.0 90.0 0.0 98
Other 3.82 3.00 64.0 14.0 22. 98
DNV. 22.42 17.8 57.0 41.0 2.0 -
Total 125.7 100% 53.5% 45.4% 1.0% 98%

Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Pct 39.% 55.% 57.% 59.% 61.%
of Bush........ Kerry % Vote Share
12% 51.1 54.0 54.3 54.7 55.1
11% 50.7 53.6 54.0 54.3 54.7
10% 50.4 53.2 53.6 53.9 54.3
9.% 50.0 52.9 53.2 53.6 53.9
4.% 48.1 51.0 51.3 51.7 52.1
............... Kerry Margin
12% 4.6 11.8 12.8 13.6 14.6
11% 3.7 10.9 11.8 12.7 13.6
10% 2.7 10.0 10.9 11.8 12.7
9.% 1.8 9.0 9.91 10.8 11.7
4% -2.9 4.3 5.18 6.08 7.00

..........Returning Gore Voter Turnout
Bush 94.% 95.% 96.% 97.% 98.%
Turnout..... Kerry % Vote Share
96% 53.4 53.5 53.7 53.8 53.9
97% 53.2 53.3 53.5 53.6 53.8
98% 53.0 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.6
99% 52.8 53.0 53.1 53.3 53.4
100% 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.1 53.2
............... Kerry Margin
96% 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.4 11.8
97% 9.86 10.3 10.6 10.9 11.3
98% 9.42 9.78 10.1 10.5 10.9
99% 8.97 9.33 9.69 10.1 10.4
100% 8.52 8.88 9.24 9.60 9.96

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2013 in True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,682 other followers