RSS

Category Archives: True Vote Models

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

Richard Charnin
Aug.28, 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 Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
LINKS TO  POSTS
Last 3 Elections: Exact Forecast of Electoral Vote

Pollsters no longer ask the question “How did you vote in the last election”? Why? Because posing the question provides an analyst with data to indicate election fraud.

In 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, in order to match the recorded vote (SOP), the exit pollsters (who work for the MSM) required a greater turnout of Bush voters from the prior election than were still alive. This is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. If the exit poll is impossible, the recorded vote it was forced to match must also be impossible. That is proof of fraud. It’s why the exit pollsters (the MSM) no longer ask the question “Who Did You Vote for in the Last Election”?

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

These 2016 models calculate a true vote estimate for each state.
Model 1: Obama and Romney voter turnout in 2016.
Model 2: Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation. Used in the 2016 forecast model.

Base case vote shares were identical in each model. The shares were forced to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout. To calculate the True Vote, returning Obama voter turnout in 2016 was adjusted to 89%. The assumption is that 6% of Obama voters were Bernie Sanders 2016 primary voters who did not return to vote in the presidential election.

Important note: Since the vote shares were forced to match a likely fraudulent recorded vote (the Mainstream Media was heavily biased for Clinton), the following results are conservative. Trump probably did at least 2% better than indicated in the base case calculations. View the sensitivity analysis.

So how can we determine Obama and Romney returning voter turnout in 2016? Where can we get that information? Why don’t the exit pollsters provide the data? Should we just guess or estimate turnout based on historical elections? I chose the latter.

Using the prior 2012 vote as a basis, a voter mortality estimate is factored in. Approximately 4% of voters pass between each election (1% annual mortality). The simplest approach is to assume an equal 95% turnout of Obama and Romney voters still living. Now we have a plausible approximation of the (unknown) mix of returning voters. Since we know the current election recorded vote, the number of new 2016 voters who did not vote in 2012 can be calculated: DNV = 2016 total vote – returning 2012 voters.

The first step is to force the candidate shares of returning voters to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout.

In the True Vote calculation, the percentage of returning Obama voters was lowered to 89% to reflect disenchantment among Bernie Sanders’ primary voters who did not vote in the general election or voted for Jill Stein or Donald Trump.

To view the sensitivity of the True Vote to Trump shares of returning Obama and Romney voters, a matrix of total vote shares is calculated in 1% increments around the Trump base case estimate. There are 25 vote share scenario combinations in the 5×5 matrix. Corresponding matrices of Clinton shares and vote margins are also included. The base case is in the central cell.

2016 Presidential State Election Model Summary
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

Recorded Vote
Clinton: 48.25-46.17% (2.83 million votes)
Trump: 306 Electoral Votes

Model 1
(returning 2012 voters)
2012 recorded vote: Obama 51.03-Romney 47.19% (4.98 million)
2016 voter turnout: Obama 89%, Romney 95%
Trump: 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
Trump: 323 Electoral Votes

Model 2
Gallup National Voter Affiliation Survey: 32D-28R-40I (state adjusted)
1. Trump and Clinton split the undecided vote:
Trump: 46.8-45.8% (1.35 million votes)
Trump: 307 Electoral Votes

2. Trump had 75% of the undecided vote:
Trump: 48.1-44.5% (4.97 million votes)
Trump: 352 Electoral Votes

The National Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1768941212

Vote share sensitivity analysis (Model 1)
-Best case: Trump had 92% of returning Romney voters and 9% of Obama voters
Trump by 49.4-45.0% (5.98 million votes)
-Base case: Trump had 90% of returning Romney voters and 7% of Obama voters
Trump by 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
-Worst case: Trump had 88% of returning  Romney voters and 5% of Obama voters
Clinton by 48.3-46.1% (2.97 million votes).

Mathematical Proof: the 2004 election was stolen
The 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible as it was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) using an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters. It indicated that 52.6 million (43% of the 2004 electorate) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 45.3 million (37%) were returning Gore voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. It indicated an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004.

2004 Election Fraud
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/2004-election-fraud-overwhelming-statistical-proof-that-it-was-stolen/

2004 Spreadsheet 1
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=7

2004 Spreadsheet 2
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=13

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 28, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2016 State Presidential True Vote Model

2016 State Presidential True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
Aug. 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 Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
LINKS TO  POSTS
Last 3 Elections: Exact Forecast of Electoral Vote

This is an analysis of the presidential vote in each of the 50 states and DC. To view the calculations for any state, just click the State tab. No input is required.

Since the 2012 election,  exit pollsters no longer provide the crosstab Who did you vote for in the previous election?  Like all crosstabs, it was matched to the recorded vote.  The  Trump, Clinton and 3rd party shares of returning Obama and Romney voters are not available. However we can closely approximate the crosstab  by calculating the shares required to match the recorded vote.

National Result
Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.87 million (48.25-46.14%).
Trump had 306 electoral votes.
Trump won the True Vote by 1.69 million (47.61-46.37%). He had 323 electoral votes.

Note:  Trump must have done better than the model indicates, since it uses vote shares derived to match the recorded vote that was biased for Clinton.

Assumptions

  • Recorded vote: 95% turnout of Obama and Romney voters in 2016. Vote shares are forced to match the state recorded vote.
  • True Vote: 89% turnout of Obama voters and 95% turnout of Romney voters.  Vote shares remain the same as used in the recorded vote.  The assumption is that 6% of Obama voters who were for Bernie Sanders in the primary did not return to vote in the presidential election. But an unknown number voted for Jill Stein and Donald Trump.

View the data and calculations for each state.  For instance, click the FL tab.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=517146616 

This sheet contains a Recorded and True Vote summary for  each state.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

Sensitivity Analysis
To see the effects of  changes in returning vote share assumptions, view the Sensitivity Matrix. It contains 25 scenarios of Trump and Clinton vote shares in one percent increments above and below the base case. The base case is the central cell  of the matrix.

Note: the difference between Recorded and True Vote is assumed strictly due to 2012 voter turnout in 2016. Granted, this is a simplifying assumption which is obviously not the case for each state.

 
 

Tags: ,

The 2016 True Vote Model (TVM)

Richard Charnin
Aug. 20, 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 2012, National and state exit polls stopped asking the question: “Who did you vote for in the last election”. Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote and assume zero fraud.

In the 2016 True Vote Model, returning  2012 election voter turnout is estimated. Vote shares required to match the recorded vote are calculated. The True Vote is estimated by adjusting 2012 voter turnout.  Recorded vote shares are unchanged.

2016 STATE TRUE VOTE MODEL: MICHIGAN
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1824904286

There are two sets of voter turnout assumptions. Vote shares are the same in each.

Case 1. Equal 95% turnout of returning Obama and Romney voters. Vote shares are calculated to automatically match the RECORDED vote.
Trump wins by 47.50-47.27% (10,821 votes)

Case 2. Base case TRUE VOTE
Estimate: 89% turnout of Obama, 95% turnout of Romney voters.
Trump wins by 48.7-45.7% (142,000 votes)
Assumption: Approximately 147,000  of Sanders MI primary voters who voted for Obama did not return to vote in the presidential election.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis
View a 25 scenario matrix for 5 Trump shares of returning Obama and 5 Trump shares of returning Romney voters. Trump wins 24 of 25 scenarios.

Worst case: Clinton wins by 47.4-46.9% (22,000 votes)
Base case: Trump wins by 48.7-45.7% (142,000 votes)
Best case: Trump wins by 50.4-44.0% (307,000 votes)

NATIONAL TRUE VOTE MODEL
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

 
 

Tags: ,

2016 Election Model- 9 pre-election polls: 5 Non-MSM and 4 MSM pollsters

Richard Charnin
Aug, 4, 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

The following are the basic steps used to estimate 2016 National True Vote shares.  The True Vote Model utilizes nine  pre-election polls.  Party-ID varies greatly among the polls. Therefore, Gallup’s dedicated voter affiliation (Party-ID) survey is used to adjust the national poll shares.

The 2016 Gallup national survey is used to approximate state Party-IDs by calculating the change from 2012 National Party-ID to 2016 Gallup Party-ID.  The projected state vote share is calculated by applying the average of the 9 national pre-election Party-ID poll shares to the 2016 state Party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated. View the full set of calculations in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036175945

National True Vote Model: Basic Methodology

1) Compare MSM vs. non-MSM polls (Party-ID and vote shares).
2) Adjust pollsters Party-ID to Gallup voter affiliation
3) Allocate undecided voters.
4) View the effect of these adjustments to the pre-election vote shares.

  • MSM pollsters overweighted Democrats Party-ID and underweighted Independents compared to non-MSM pollsters. Clinton wins the polls by 45.8-43.6%, matching her 2.1% recorded vote margin.
  • 2 Apply Gallup voter affiliation survey of National Party-ID (40I-32D-28R)  to each of the nine polls, Trump is a 44.1-43.3% winner.
  • 3 Note: the polls did not allocate undecided voters (approximately 6%), which typically break 3-1 for the challenger. Trump was the de-facto challenger.
  • 4 Effect: Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

Non-MSM………….Party-ID…………..Pre-election……….Gallup (40I-32D-28R)
Polls………………Ind Dem Rep…….. Clinton..Trump…..Clinton Trump
IBD………………..37% 34% 29%…….. 43%….45%……..41.9% 45.3%
Rasmussen……..32% 40% 28%………45%….43%……..40.6% 45.3%
Quinnipiac………26% 40% 34%………47%….40%……..44.7% 40.8%
Gravis……………27% 40% 33%………47%….45%……..43.6% 45.5%
USC/Dormsite… 30% 38% 32%………44%….47%……..41.7% 48.2%
Average………..30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…45.2%.44.0%…..42.5% 45.0%

MSM……………..Party-ID……………..Pre-election…….Gallup Adj
Polls…………….Ind Dem Rep………..Clinton Trump..Clinton Trump
Reuters…………16% 45% 38%………42% ….39%…….36.0% 36.8%
Fox News………19% 43% 38%………48%…..44%…….45.8% 43.9%
CNN……………..43% 31% 26%………49%……44%…..48.6% 44.4%
ABC ……………..29% 37% 29%………47%…..45%……46.8% 47.0%
Average………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Summary…………….Party-ID…………Pre-election……Gallup Adj
…………………Ind…..Dem….Rep……Clinton.Trump..Clinton Trump
9 polls……….28.8% 38.7% 31.9%…..45.8% 43.6%…..43.3% 44.1%
5 nonMSM….30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…..45.2% 44.0%….42.5% 45.0%
4 MSM………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…..46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 5, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 National Exit Poll vs. True Vote Model: How did you vote in the 2012 election?

Richard Charnin
July 9, 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

The 2008 presidential election was the last one in which the National (NEP) and state exit polls asked “How Did You Vote in the Last Election?”. A plausible reason is that the question provided clear proof of fraud in all elections from 1988-2008. The How Voted crosstab matrix required more returning Bush voters than were still alive in order to match the bogus recorded vote in 1992 (119% turnout), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). Conversely, the True Vote Model, which used a feasible estimate of returning voters, confirmed the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls.

Since the “How Voted” question was not asked, we can derive a crosstab to match the 2016 recorded vote using assumptions for 2012 returning voter turnout and 2016 vote shares.

General Assumption: 1% Annual voter mortality

2016 Estimated National Exit Poll assumptions
Equal 96% turnout of living 2012 Obama and Romney voters.
Clinton wins 87% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins 7% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins new voters by 48-47%.
Clinton wins by 2.9 million recorded votes, 48.3-46.2%.

2016 True Vote Model assumptions
Voter turnout: 92% of living Obama voters and 96% of Romney voters
Clinton wins 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters
Trump wins 10% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters
New voters: Trump and Clinton 45% tie
Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

2016 TVM rationale
– 96% Romney voter turnout vs. 92% for Obama: approximately 2.5 million living Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who did not vote.
– Clinton’s 82% share of returning Obama voters: approximately 2.6 million Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who defected to Jill Stein, Trump and Johnson.

NATIONAL EXIT POLL – is always forced to match the recorded vote
“HOW VOTED IN 2012” was not asked in the 2016 NEP.
It would have looked something like this…
2016….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 44.6% 87% 7% 6%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV….. 12.6% 47% 48% 5.4%

Total…. 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%
Vote…. 136.2 65.7 62.9 7.6

TRUE VOTE
2012….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 42.7% 82% 10% 8%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV…… 14.5% 45% 45% 10%

Total…. 100% 45.1% 47.8% 7.1%
Vote…. 136.2 61.5 65.1 9.7

Sensitivity analysis
The tables display Trump’s total vote share and margin over a range of 25 scenarios of his  shares of returning Obama (8-12%) and Romney voters (86-90%). He wins 24 of the 25 scenarios. In the worst case scenario, Trump loses by 1 million votes (46.9-46.1%). In the best case, he wins by 8 million (49.5-43.5%). Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

View the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

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%
 

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis