Thanks for the comment.

I will post it on Facebook for election activists who I have known for years. They have been extremely frustrated by all of these stolen elections.

I hope that you will find time to read and comment on the election fraud analysis I have been doing since 2004.

I have proved that the consistent 4-5% red shift in the presidential exit polls since 1988 from the recorded vote proves systemic fraud beyond any doubt.

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote by 48-46%.

But they won the unadjusted exit polls by 53-41%.

I developed a True Vote model which confirms the unadjusted exit polls.

My website/blog links to many of my posts since 2004.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ib27G_vDNtQDNLDR8rXiU2LJLCn7Hspd4g5SKtQw1CM/edit#

The probability of these discrepancies is 1 in trillions.

]]>I included this equation in the post which assumes the fraud starts at the smallest precinct (at 0%):

Calculating the True Vote

The cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the baseline and the estimated True Vote. We can adjust the True Vote by adding the change in cumulative vote shares from the lowest shares from the 0-25% mark. The assumption is that votes were flipped in the 0-25% interval, not just 25-100%.

We calculate an estimated adjusted True Vote (TV) by extrapolation by increasing the change from the 25% mark by 1/3. V25 is the vote share at the 25% mark; VF is the final recorded share.

TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF

For example, in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. Adding 1/3 of 7.2% (2.4%), the cumulative vote share change for 0-100% is 9.6%.

The adjusted True Vote estimate is:

TV=68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 1.33*7.2% + 58.8% =9.6% + 58.8%

Therefore, we can assume that Conway did even better than his shares at the 25% mark. But to be conservative, we will use the cumulative share at 25% of the vote as an estimate of the True Vote..

]]>I reference your analysis here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/09/how-to-do-voting/

]]>I suggest you look at the spreadsheet for a given county.

For instance, look at Montgomery County:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=1174073740

The first group of columns are the precinct vote totals as reported.

The second set show the precinct votes sorted from smallest to largest precincts.

The third set shows the cumulative votes.

The fourth set shows the cumulative shares.

The final column is the percentage of the total vote for the cumulative precincts – from the lowest to the largest (at 100%).

Scan the column for the precinct closest to 25% of the total.

The corresponding vote shares at the 25% mark are a proxy for the True vote.

The lines should not diverge from that point due to the Law of Large Numbers; they should reach a steady state.

Montgomery County

Conway Bevin Curtis

0.497 0.463 0.040 at 23% (Proxy for the True vote)

0.414 0.546 0.040 at the final 100% (recorded vote)

The change in Conway’s share from the 25% mark to the final is -.083

This is the main sheet which summarizes the vote shares for the TOP 40 and other counties.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=0

I do not “look for” anomalies. I use cumulative vote shares closest to the 25% mark, regardless of the discrepancy from the final vote.

In the post, I provide three links to three mathematicians like myself who have seen the same anomalies in the move to the GOP from small to larger precincts.

Read the articles along with the KY data and charts.

There is nothing to discuss. The numbers speak for themselves.

The divergences are not random occurrences. The votes move in one direction only- in favor of the GOP.

In large counties the cumulative vote shares diverge to favor the Republican; if anything they should be flat or slightly favor the Democrat.

I have analyzed Cumulative Vote Shares for the following 2014 Governor elections:

FL, IL, WI, MA, MD. They all exhibit the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP vote shares in larger precincts.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/cumulative-vote-share-anomalies-indicators-of-rigged-elections/

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies.

http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University, “Precinct
Size
Matters:
The
Large
Precinct
Bias
in
US
Presidential
Elections”,

reveals the persistent correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed similar anomalies in the 2012 primaries.

2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf

I hope this answers your questions.

Note: The spreadsheet also includes a True Vote model analysis for the 2015 KY race. It is based on the 2012 presidential election in KY.

I have used this model quite successfully in analyzing presidential election fraud.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=2073829701

Thanks for your interest

Richard Charnin

I do want to understand your reasoning, so if you have time, I’d be glad to discuss via email or phone. I’ll also come back here to check for replies.

Thanks!

]]>