Category Archives: Uncategorized

KY 2015 Governor: Numerical voting anomalies

KY 2015 Governor: Numerical voting anomalies

Richard Charnin
Nov.26, 2015
Update: Nov. 30

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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

This is a follow-up to KY 2015 Governor Cumulative Vote Shares indicate Likely FraudBevin(R) defeated Conway (D) by 52.5-43.8%, an 85,000 vote margin. Pre-election polls had Conway winning by 3-5%.

 Precinct data
Precinct data for 109 of 120 counties were downloaded. Eleven counties did not have detailed precinct data in Excel format (county votes included). The details are in two spreadsheets: KY2015Gov1 and KY2015Gov2

Cumulative vote shares
Conway’s cumulative vote share declined from the 25% mark to the final in 75 of the 109 counties for which there is precinct data. The probability of this occurrence is 1 in 26,000. His vote share declined from the 10% mark to the final in each of the 17 largest counties. The probability is 1 in 262,000. We would normally expect a nearly even split of gains and losses.

Assuming the True Vote was at the
– 10% CVS mark, Conway won by 49.5-46.4%.
– 25% CVS mark, Bevin won by 48.3-47.7%

County vote data was categorized into groups from the largest 15 counties to the 120 total. Conway had 56.4% of the Top 15 at the 10% CVS mark and 53.9% at the 25% mark.

Vote share correlation
KY has 3,201,852 registered voters and 3,663 precincts (874 registered voters/precinct).  An average of 268 votes/precinct (31.5% turnout)

Conway’s vote share was positively correlated to
– registered voters: 0.32 correlation at 25% CVS and 0.25 at final.
– ballots cast: 0.32 at 25% CVS and 0.27 at final.
– voter turnout: 0.20 at 25% CVS and 0.22 at final.

Six county audit
In the six small counties chosen for an audit (54,000 votes), Conway had 42.1% at the 25% mark and 39.3% at the final. A better choice would have been six large counties (352,000 votes) i which Conway had 60.2% at 25% and 52.9% at the final.

True Vote Model
A Sensitivity Analysis over a range of vote shares and returning voters from the 2012 presidential election indicated that Conway won the base case scenario by 49.9-46.8% with a 98% win probability, matching the pre-election polls. He won 64 of 75 scenarios.

Downballot races
Secretary of State Lundergan (D) won with 51.16%.
Attorney General Beshear (D) won with 50.12%
Conway lost with a 45.24% (2-party share)

Absentee Ballots
In 17 counties for which there is absentee voter data, Conway had 45.4% in absentee paper ballots (984) vs. 32.6% in total ballots (65,915). His vote share in absentee paper ballots exceeded his total vote share in all 17 counties. He had 37.3% in machine absentees.

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,

1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model

1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
Oct. 13, 2015

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

The 1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model (TVM) calculates the True Vote for every election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight.

The adjusted National Exit Poll is a mathematical matrix of deceit. It is always forced to match the recorded vote. In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically.

In the 12 elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%.
The Democrats won the average True Vote by 49.6-45.0%.

In the six elections since 1992, the Democrats won the recorded vote by 48.8-45.0%.
The Democrats won the True Vote by 53.5-40.0%!

The key parameters in calculating the True Vote are a) the number of returning voters from the prior election, b) new voters and c) corresponding exit poll vote shares. In order to calculate a robust estimate of returning voters, we must consider the mathematical biological constraint: The number of returning voters must be less than the number who actually voted in the previous election.

The TVM uses several estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The current election vote shares are assumed to be the National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote.

TVM calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the adjusted Final National Exit Poll. One very important result is the turnout of previous election voters required to match the official recorded vote. In 1972 (Nixon), 1988 (Bush 1), 1992 (Bush 1), 2004 (Bush 2) and 2008 (Bush 2) returning Republican turnout exceeded 100%. This impossible result indicates massive election fraud.

Methods 2-5 calculate vote shares based on alternative returning voter assumptions from the previous election. Method 2 is based on the recorded vote; Method 3 on total votes cast; Method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; Method 5 on the True Vote.

The first step is to estimate the number of uncounted votes.The Census Bureau surveys total votes cast in every election (the margin of error is less than 0.5%). We have the simple formula:
Net Uncounted Vote = Census Total Votes Cast – Official Recorded Vote

The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it requires an impossible turnout of returning voters (exceeds the number still living).

An estimated 5% of previous election voters pass on before each election (based on mortality tables). Turnout of previous election voters can be estimated from registered voter turnout. Historically, turnout has ranged from 90-98%, depending on voter interest. Given voter mortality and the estimated turnout of voters from the previous election, we calculate an estimate of returning voters. The number of new voters is simply the difference between total votes cast in the current election and returning voters from the prior.

The primary method used to adjust the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote is by changing the returning voter mix. If that is not enough to match the recorded vote (as it was in 2004), vote shares will also be adjusted.

For example, in 2004 the National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of voters were returning Bush voters and 37% returning Gore. But Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, the maximum number of returning Bush voters was approximately 47.5 million. Bush’s National Exit poll turnout of 2000 voters was impossible; it implied 5.5 million more Bush 2000 voters than were living. There were 5.5 million PHANTOM Bush voters. Not only that, the Bush shares of new voters, returning Gore and Bush voters were inflated as well. Since an impossible National Exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote, then the recorded vote was also impossible. The election was stolen beyond any doubt.

The built-in 2004 TVM Sensitivity Analysis tables display total Kerry vote shares and margins over a range of a) vote shares of new and returning Bush voters, b) vote shares of new and returning Gore voters and c) turnout of returning Gore vs. Bush voters.

Kerry Vote shares are calculated for 25 scenarios in each of the following:
1) Kerry shares of new voters and returning Bush voters
2) Kerry shares of Gore voters and returning Bush voters
3) Gore and Bush returning voter turnout percentages

Kerry won ALL 75 scenarios easily.
In the worst case scenario, he had 51.96% and won by 6.75 million votes.
In the base (most likely) case, he had 53.56% and won by 10.76 million votes.
In the best case, he had 55.15% and won by 14.78 million votes.

Base Case:
Returning 2000 Voters % of 2004 total votes cast:
Gore 41.79% (PG)
Bush 38.02% (PB)
Other 3.11% (PO)
New 17.08% (PN)

Kerry shares of
Gore 91% (KG)
Bush 10% (KB
Other 64% (KO)
New 57% (KN)

KV = 53.56% = Kerry total True vote share
KV = .4179*.91 + .3802*.10 + .0311*.64 + .1708*.57
Vary KN from 55-59%
Vary KB from 8-12%

Kerry’s vote share is calculated over a range of Gore and Bush returning voter turnout percentages. The following equation is the formula for the base case (the central cell in the matrix).
KV = 53.56% =($L$7*$H$7*H$45+$L$8*$H$8*$E50+$L$9*$H$9*$E50)/$J$12+$L$10*(1-($H$7*H$45+$H$8*$E50+$H$9*$E50)/$J$12)
Vary Gore and Bush from 96-100%


The 2004 Exit Poll Evaluation Report

The exit pollsters declared that the 6.5% discrepancy (WPE) was due to differential response of Kerry and Bush voters. The pollsters hypothesized that 56 Kerry voters responded for every 50 Bush voters – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. They had no rationale for rBr and did not consider fraud as a possible factor. In fact, rBr was contradicted by survey data which showed that response rates were greater in strong Bush precincts than in strong Kerry precincts.

The pollsters claimed that the 7% WPE for voting machine discrepancies did not indicate fraud. This was contradicted by the fact that paper ballots had a 2% WPE discrepancy.
Lever machines located primarily in NY, CT, PA, LA and VA, had a whopping 11% WPE.

It is important to keep in mind that all exit polls (state and national) are forced to match the recorded vote. This procedure implies zero fraud. But the recorded vote never reflects the True Vote due to uncounted, stuffed and switched votes.

The timeline of the 2004 state exit polls show a steady decline in Kerry’s vote share:
Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: 51% (76,000 votes)
National Unadjusted: 51.7% (13660 respondents)
Best GEO: 51.0% (adjusted geographic weights)
National Exit Poll: 48.3% (final adjustment is a forced match to the recorded vote)

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 13, 2015 in Uncategorized



Lone Nutters Review “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Sept.18, 2015

Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
JFK Posts

These Lone Nutters “reviewed” my book on Amazon. They all gave it one star. No surprise there; I must be doing something right. The LNs achieved their goal of getting the average Amazon rating down. But their “reviews” gave me an opportunity to expose them in my replies.

Compare their comments below to the five star reviews.

Caution – Selection Bias At Work
Henry Sienzant
“We’re really in nut country now, Toto”on March 12, 2015
Anyone who thinks Richard Charnin has established anything needs to consider that his list has a selection bias at work. It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.

Wait for the bargain bin if you really want to read this book
Steve Roe
on March 31, 2015
Refuse to read this book, knowing the author’s serious lack of research and knowledge of the JFK assassination. Here is his fan base that inflate his reviews. […]

One Star
Bernadette Hackett
on March 4, 2015
Too much in the statistical bend.

Junk Science (sans the Science)
Mark Ulrik
on November 27, 2014
I would advise against buying this book unless you have a perverse fascination with poorly applied logic and math. Let the following nugget from the author’s blog suffice.
=== Quote Begin ===
Researcher Harold Feldman wrote that of 121 eyewitnesses: 51 (42%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll area, 32 from the TSBD, and 38 had no opinion.
Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken. The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.
=== Quote End ===

It’s certainly not a “given” that P is probability of a particular answer being “correct.” The 0.42 figure is nothing more than the probability of a random witness giving the author the answer he’s looking for. The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.

Don’t waste your money
Norman Logsdon
“movie lover”on December 3, 2014
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.

Reclaiming $5.95 – Mathematical/Logical Theorem
John G. Jazwiec
on January 5, 2015
I can sum up the entire book in a paragraph. This is not to say the author is wrong. It’s only to say that it is redundant, defensive and didn’t have enough new material to warrant a book costing $5.95.

Garbage In, Garbage Out
Wisconsin Badger
on November 30, 2014
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.

New Lipstick… Same Old Pig
Mike Davinroy
on November 4, 2014
Over many years I have read, and enjoyed well over a hundred books on the JFK assassination. I’ve found the vast majority of them to have something new or interesting. Perhaps this book would have been interesting in 1973, but much of what the author states in this “book” are long ago worn out theories that have been largely discounted by most serious researchers of the assassination. In my opinion this author abandons common sense and puts far too much faith in mathematics. It’s been said, “if your only tool is a hammer, you look at every problem as a nail.” This author needs more tools.

This author’s statistics “prove” absolutely nothing about the existence of some assassination conspiracy, and if he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would have surely submitted his material for scientific peer review long ago if he had any hope of gaining credibility. Instead, he blames the media and people equipped with common sense for not believing his preposterous conclusions. As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 18, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

JFK: Warren Commission apologists claim that…

Richard Charnin
September 11, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Warren Commission apologists claim that…

1. Oswald shot Tippit.
But Tippit was shot no later than 1:06 pm. Oswald was seen outside his rooming house a mile away at 1:04 (some claim he was at the Texas Theater). The WC had to add 10 minutes to the time of death (1:16) to fabricate the myth that Oswald had enough time to get to the scene.

2.The Magic Bullet theory is correct.
But the bullet entered 5.5” below JFK’s collar and never exited. Gerald R. Ford, a member of the Warren Commission, suggested that the panel raise its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back in a transparent, illegal scam to bolster the ridiculous SBT.

3. The three tramps were not Harrelson, Holt and Rogers.
But they were identified by Lois Gibson , who works for the Houston Police Department and is probably the most respected forensic artist and facial expert in the world. She has just been awarded with a notation in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest crime solving rate based on composite sketches.

4.Cancer and heart attacks cannot be induced.
But Judyth Vary Baker and Mary S. Sherman, under the direction of cancer expert Alton Ochsner, developed a cancer-producing agent to kill Castro. . The 1975 Church Senate Intelligence Committee heard testimony of methods to induce heart attacks and cancer.

5.The witness unnatural death probability calculation does not take margin of error into account.
But this was not a poll of witnesses. It is a statistical analysis based on historical data.

6. The Weigman photo proves that Lovelady was standing at the Doorway.
But it does not show Lovelady at 12:30. The Altgens 6 photo was taken at the precise second that JFK was shot. It shows Lovelady standing on the steps.

7. Oswald was the Lone Gunman on the 6th floor.
But according to Det. Will Fritz, no one could place him there. And he was seen on the second floor at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold – who was not called to testify at the WC.

8. No one testified that they saw Oswald in front on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository.
But the Warren Commission and the FBI had their patsy and would never allow such testimony. To claim they would is laughable disinformation.

9. Lovelady was Doorman. Oswald was not in front of the TSBD.
But Lovelady and Frazier both testified that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Doorman was on the first floor. So Lovelady could not have been Doorman.

10. The HSCA determined that the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability that 18 material witnesses would die (13 unnaturally) within three years of the assassination was invalid. The HSCA claimed the witness universe was “unknowable”.
But the HSCA did not consider a) unnatural deaths, b) 552 Warren Commission witnesses, of whom at least 30 died suspiciously, c) 7 FBI officials were due to testify at HSCA and died suspiciously within a 6 month period, d) and at least 100 others.

11. The HSCA noted just 21 suspicious deaths.
But not one of them was Mafia (8), CIA (16), FBI (9), Dallas police (12) or anti-Castro Cuban (5). There were at least 122 suspicious deaths between 1964 and 1979.

12. There is no proof that the suspicious witnesses were JFK-related.
But approximately 67 of the 122 in the JFK Calc spreadsheet were called to testify at the WC (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church Senate Intelligence Committee (1975-76) and HSCA (1976-79).

13. There was no connection between the witnesses.
But at least 50 were from the Dallas area. It cannot just be a coincidence. If there was no connection, the deaths would have been distributed randomly throughout the United States.

14. Warren Commission apologist John McAdams said that John Simkin’s JFK Index includes a number of individuals who were inserted in the index because they died.
That is laughable but not unexpected considering the source. Seventy (70) of the 656 died suspiciously, 44 unnaturally (including 22 homicides). The probability: 1 in trillions.

15. Fingerprint expert Nathan Darby was proven wrong after claiming that fingerprints taken from the 6th floor of the TSBD were those of hitman Mac Wallace.
But “Wallace’s police ‘ten-print’ from his 1951 arrest, used in Mr. Darby’s comparison, was taken 12 years before the murder of JFK and even Mr Darby himself observed differences in the two prints that had arisen during the intervening time (e.g., he recorded what appeared to be an injury to the skin that was not present in the 1951 print but disrupted the 1963 print). He still felt confident enough to swear an affidavit stating that he had found 14 matching points, the threshold for admissibility in Texan courts. By all accounts, he later revisited the prints out of personal interest and found a 32-point match”.

16. Oswald’s palm prints were found on the Carcano
But Dallas police officials said during public interviews that Oswald’s prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI’s Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald’s prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle’s barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald’s dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158)

17. Oswald purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by mail-order under the alias “Alek Hidell”.
But this video proves that Oswald never ordered the rifle.

Why would he order a sub-par rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago using an alias when he could have purchased a superior rifle anonymously anywhere in Texas?
– Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order. So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn’t buy it, why does the handwriting seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person’s handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect the fakery. The original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

– Nobody at Oswald’s post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped. None of the postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there.

– Postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, “Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an ‘A. Hidell,’ would receive mail through the box in question”.

– There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by “A. Hidell” and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. “A. Hidell” ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein’s Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. The Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2015 in Uncategorized


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

The 2004 Election “Game” debate

Richard Charnin
Aug. 24, 2015

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

2004 Election Fraud: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
1988-2012 Presidential Elections: The Master Spreadsheet
Cumulative Vote Shares: Indicators of Rigged Elections
A Simple 2004-2008-2012 Exit Poll Simulation Model
Cumulative Vote Share Spreadsheet Reference

The 2004 Election “Game” debate

Today is the 10th anniversary of my banning during the “Game” debate on the Democratic Underground (“DU”). The purpose of the debate was to determine if Bush really did steal the election. In those days I posted as TruthIsAll (TIA).

In 2004-2005, DU was the most popular debating site for analyzing the 2004 exit polls. There were scores of heated debates. Viewing the “Game” thread is instructive in understanding the nature of the debates which fueled the election integrity movement.

I expressed frustration with the exit poll naysayers who had a myriad of bogus excuses as to why the exit polls were wrong and claimed that Bush did not steal the 2004 election:
Not ONE mathematical scenario, but many theories and hypotheses based on reluctant Bush voters, the Bush Bandwagon effect, lying Gore voters, forgetful Gore voters, bad weather at the exit polls, exuberant Kerry-biased exit pollsters, inexperienced exit pollsters, exit polls not designed to catch fraud, young exit pollsters, early Democratic voters, late Republican voters, inaccurate exit polls, cluster effect, faulty assumptions, High MoEs, massive Fundamental Christian turnout, Bush the War President, conspiracy fraudsters, sore Kerry losers, rabid spreadsheet-wielding liberal bloggers, Democrats weak on defense, Kerry a lousy campaigner, Repubs united, Democrats divided, Bush strong on moral issues, Bush a religious born-again Christian..

This comment by the brilliant poster anaxarchos sums it all up nicely:

In 2005, unadjusted state and national exit polls were not available. The 12:22am preliminary 2004 National Exit Poll timeline (at 13,047 respondents) showed Kerry leading by 51-48%. But the final adjusted poll (13660 respondents) magically matched Bush’s 51-48% margin. Analysts questioned how vote shares could flip an impossible 3% with just 613 additional respondents. The anomaly was strong evidence that the election was stolen.

Another major red flag was that the adjusted poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 were returning Bush 2000 voters. Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million Bush voters died and another 1 million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 47.5 million returning Bush voters.
There had to be at least 5 million phantom Bush voters.

In order to explain away these anomalies, the naysayers offered a number of arguments:
1) Reluctant Bush exit poll responders
2) Gore voter false recall
3) near zero correlation of 2000 to 2004 vote-swing and the 2004 exit poll red-shift.
All of these arguments were subsequently refuted.

In 2006, Mark Lindeman wrote “A TruthIsAll FAQ” in which he responded to questions on my analysis. This was my response:

These posts were written in 2012 after the 1988-2008 state and national unadjusted exit polls became available. The data was utilized in the True Vote Model.

2004 unadjusted state and national exit polls vs. the recorded vote

Exit Polls- adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

True Vote Models- a powerful sensitivity analysis tool
2004 Pre-election and Exit Poll Simulation Model

Election Myths
The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the False Recall Myth
Vote Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope means No Election Fraud” Canard
Exposing Election Myths: Facts and Graphs

Media Complicity- covering up the Fraud

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 24, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

The Media and Scott Walker’s 2014 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
July 25, 2015

This is an informative article and video from We the People Dane County Blog It contains links to Election Fraud articles (including many of my blog posts) and related videos.

Analysis of Scott Walker’s 2012 recall and the November 2014 election results can be shown to be mathematically implausible and cannot represent voter intent. The chance that Scott Walker has, in 2 consecutive election cycles, “won” with vote totals that each violate the Law of Large Numbers is zero.

While Scott Walker bases his 2016 Presidential Campaign on the statement he has won 3 elections in 4 years, in fact, at least 2 of these elections can be demonstrated to have been stolen. The embedded video below explains and highlights the media’s role in election fraud.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 25, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Wisconsin 2010 Senate: True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote shares indicate Feingold won

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 16, 2011
Updated May 6,2012 to include unadjusted exit polls
Updated July 21, 2015 to include Cumulative Vote share analysis

Charnin Website
Wisconsin blog posts

2010 Wisconsin Senate True Vote Model

Wisconsin exit polls
This is an updated analysis of the 2010 Wisconsin Senate race. The WI Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%). Forcing a match to the recorded vote is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote. In the adjusted 2010 exit poll, 49% of the recorded votes were cast by returning Obama 2008 voters and 43% by returning McCain voters. The ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% national recorded vote margin.

In Wisconsin, Obama had a 56.2% recorded share; Feingold just 47%. But Obama led the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll by 63-36% (2,545 respondents; 2.4% margin of error). In Oregon, Obama had a 57% recorded share. Ron Wyden, a progressive Democratic senator running for re-election,had an identical 57%.

The probability is 97.5% that Obama’s true Wisconsin vote share exceeded 61%. Assuming Obama had 61%, how could Feingold have had just 47% two years later?

In the 2010 WI exit poll, Vote shares were not provided for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters which represented 3% and 5% of the total recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the vote, Johnson must have won these voters by approximately 60-35%, which is highly unlikely. In 2008, Obama won returning third party voters by 66-20%.

A comparison of the demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields interesting results – but the 2010 numbers are suspect asthey are based on the the 2010 recorded vote:
– Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the final week to win.
From 2004 > 2010:
Females: 53% > 50% (is not plausible).
Voters over 45: 50% > 62% (seems high)
Party ID: 38R/35D > 37D/36R (more Democrats, so how did Feingold lose)
Independents for Feingold: 62% > 43% (implausible)
Labor for Feingold; 66% > 59% (why would he lose his base support?)
Milwaukee County for Feingold: 68% > 61% (10% of his base defected?
Suburban/Rural for Feingold: 51% > 43%

The True Vote Model
Using the unadjusted 2008 Wisconsin presidential exit poll as a basis, Feingold won by 52.6-45.5%, a 154,000 vote margin. The model assumes McCain returning voter turnout of 70% in 2010, compared to just 63% of Obama voters. It also assumes the adjusted exit poll shares that were required to match the recorded vote. The adjusted poll indicates that Feingold had an implausibly low 84% share of returning Obama voters. If Feingold had 89% (all else being equal), he would have won by 289,000 votes with a 56% total share.

Sensitivity Analysis
Vote shares are displayed for various scenarios of a) returning Obama and McCain voter turnout and b) Feingold’s share of returning and new voters. Although the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote, the True Vote Model uses the adjusted vote shares as the base case. It is likely that the vote shares were also adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes a 1.0% annual voter mortality rate, a 63% turnout of living Obama voters and a 70% turnout of McCain voters. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters but there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was the winner in all scenarios of returning Obama and McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the adjusted WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

Cumulative Vote Shares
The sharply increasing Johnson cumulative vote share in Milwaukee and other counties defies explanation. Democratic vote shares rise in large urban voting precincts.

1 Comment

Posted by on July 23, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,139 other followers