My Website

This is a compendium of links to all of my posts from 2003 to the present.
The focus has been on election fraud and JFK analysis probability models. Presidential, congressional and senate election analyses are based on pre-election forecasting models, post-election exit polls and True Vote models. In addition, there are many links to important articles by influential researchers.

In the past two years, my focus has been on mathematically proving a JFK conspiracy based on the number of JFK-related unnatural witness deaths. See Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.

The corporate media, academia, political scientists and politicians never discuss the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and election fraud is systemic.

The number of unnatural JFK-related witness deaths far exceeded the expected number based on mortality rates. The probability of 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths in a group of 1400 JFK-related witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78 is ZERO (less than 1 in one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion). These are my JFK blog posts:

I have written four books on Election Fraud:
Trump Won the True Vote: Polling Anomalies, Democratic Defections, Independents and Late Undecided Voters
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

It is standard policy to force national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote – even if it requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

The recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failure; that is media misinformation. It’s the fault of humans who program the machines to switch and drop votes.

In the 1968-2008 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the recorded vote by a 49-45% margin. The Recursive National True Vote Model indicates that the Democrats actually won by 49-45%.

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the 274 unadjusted state exit polls (total 375,000 respondents) by 51.6-41.8%. They won the six National Exit Polls (total 90,000 respondents) by the identical margin. But the recorded vote was just 48-46%. The deviations were too large to attribute to faulty polling or differential response.

The 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Polls Database is based on the Roper archives.

There were 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008,of which 135 exceeded the margin of error with 131 red-shifting to the Republican. Given the 95% confidence level, approximately 14 (5% of 274) exit polls should have exceeded the margin of error. The probability of this occurrence is 1 in one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The 2004 Election Simulation Model illustrates pre and post-election simulation forecasting and analysis.

The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that 43% of 2004 voters (52.6 million) were returning Bush 2000 voters. But in 2000, Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Approximately 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming 46 million voted, the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. To determine the True Vote, the post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), 1.25% annual mortality and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. In this base case scenario, Kerry had 53.5%and won by 67-57 million with 379 EV.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The 120 pre-election Generic forecast trend model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote and was within 0.06% of the unadjusted national exit poll. The Democratic landslide was denied.

A comprehensive analysis of the 2008 Primaries showed that Obama did significantly better than the recorded results indicate.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share and 9.5 million margin. But the forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him leading by 13% – before undecided voters were allocated. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by assuming there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Just as in 2004, the Final implied that more Bush 2004 voters than were still living returned to vote in 2008. Bush won the 2004 recorded vote by just 3.0 million. Kerry won the state exit polls by 52-47%. Assuming Kerry’s exit poll margin, one would expect approximately 7 million more returning Kerry voters than Bush voters – a 19 million difference from the Final 2008 NEP.

The Final also indicated that there were 5 million returning third party voters. But just 1.2 million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. Either the Final NEP or the recorded third-party vote share was wrong.

The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with a 58% share and had 420 EV. His 58% True vote share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes of which Obama had 63.1%?

The 2010 Midterms Model indicated that a number of House, Senate and Governor elections were likely stolen.

The 2012 Election Model included a True Vote Model projection as well as the polling-based projection. The pre-election polling model exactly matched Obama’s 332 recorded electoral votes and was within 0.5% of his 51.0% share. But as in 2008, the polling-based forecast was too conservative since it was based on final likely voter (LV) polls which always underestimate the Democratic True share. Once again, an Obama landslide was denied.The True Vote Model indicated that he would have had 55% in a fraud-free election.

The 2016 Election Model exactly forecast Trump’s 306 recorded electoral vote. But the post-election True Vote Model indicated that he had 351 EV.


38 responses to “My Website

  1. John Truesdale

    November 9, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Read your most recent post via OpEd News and got here from there. Fascinating, but not enough small words for getting my GOPer friends to read and understand. What the heck, I can see their responses in my mind’s eye: LIES.

    Where did the number on the 2K FL presidential race come from? I had a number of 50K that stuck in my mind from a study that I can’t remember who did or who sponsored it. I’m thinking some of the papers/media.

    Lotta good that did after that 5-4 vote.

    You know that Bush was going to thank all those who voted for him for PResident, but they took it out. Yeah, cooler heads prevailed. They didn’t want him thanking Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, etc, etc.

    • richardcharnin

      November 9, 2010 at 11:09 pm

      I realize that I’m not the easiest read. Tell your GOP friends that not only do they need to learn the facts, they need to do the math. If they don’t want to do the work they are just blowing smoke.

      Here is the Florida 2000 link. NORC did the study for the media. But the 180,000 spoiled ballots were mostly for Gore (110,000 were deiberatley overpunched):

      • Bronwyn Beistle

        May 22, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        Mr. Charnin–I’m from, and we are discussing, among many other things, the possibility of election fraud in this election (very high probability, IMO, and I thought that before I saw your math). I’m currently directing people here, and will continue to do so, but folks would love it if you’d join us, or even occasionally drop by. Also, we want to know, are you going to write another book on the 2016 election?



      • Richard Charnin

        May 22, 2016 at 5:20 pm


        Thanks for the invite. I will drop by.
        I am thinking about writing a book on 2016. But I am not sure.
        Have you and others at your site read my two books?


      • Marionumber1

        May 24, 2016 at 6:50 pm

        Joe Lenski admitted in a Washington Post interview last month that exit polls were adjusted to meet the official results, but never explained how. I find this especially troubling: the adjustment already seems illegitimate, and they won’t even tell us the methodology behind it. Do you have any idea what they do? Are they just picking arbitrary demographics and playing with the weights, or erasing respondents until it matches the vote, or something else?

      • Richard Charnin

        May 25, 2016 at 2:55 am

      • Marionumber1

        May 25, 2016 at 6:28 pm

        I completely agree that the exit poll adjustment is ridiculous, and that’s why I’m even more troubled that Edison doesn’t reveal how they adjust them. Do you know what they do to the polls to force them to meet the official vote?

  2. Maryanne

    November 9, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    And in Florida, polling places were changed for this election. A family I know had to drive 25 miles to get to their voting location, passing other polling places on the way. Is it just me, or does that seem like a problem?

    • richardcharnin

      November 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm

      Of course it’s a problem if you have to go so far out of the way.

      I live in Democratic Palm Beach County, so they make sure to have lots of polling places.

  3. Laura Stein

    January 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    I’ve been following election integrity issues since the 2000 debacle, when I found blackboxvoting’s website and read Greg Palast’s book. I’m not a dumb person, and I really want to learn what is known about the 2010 electoral results. But I absolutely can’t make head or tail out of almost all your article “2010 Midterms: Footprints of Election Fraud”. For instance, most of the following paragraphs jump from one year’s elections to another, sometimes mid-sentence. They discuss the results as though the reader had the same tables to refer to as you did while writing it, without posting those tables. It states conclusions w/o going through the steps you made to reach them, then throws in a bunch of statistics including a lot of unexplained jargon, and doesn’t explain how those statistics relate to your conclusions. It might as well have been in Greek.

    “In 1998 Oregon decided to implement voting by mail, probably as a result of the 1992 debacle in which the state had the highest exit poll discrepancy (13.6%). In 1996, 10% of votes cast were uncounted. Oregon was the only “battleground” state in which Kerry improved his share over Gore. Kerry’s 51.4% share closely matched the unadjusted exit poll aggregate (52%) as one would expect being a battleground state. Since Bush won the recorded vote with 50.7-48.3%, Kerry did 3.1% better in Oregon than nationally. Oregon gave Obama 56.7% in 2008 (3.8% more than his 52.9% recorded national share).

    “But at this late date, the evidence (statistical and documented) is overwhelming: the 2004 election was stolen. The Oregon recorded vote confirms it. But since exit pollsters have not released 2008 unadjusted exit polls, we can’t compare them to the recorded vote shares. We do have the Final 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that there was a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 450% turnout of living third-party voters. According to the Final, there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Therefore, Obama must have done much better than the recorded 52.9% share than the NEP indicates. Oregon had it right in 2008, just like it did in 2004.”

    The most frustrating thing of all is that it’s clear that YOU know much of significance that you feel is a smoking gun all but proving fraud in the 2010 elections. However, I can’t utilize any of it to inform my own opinions (I can’t even tell whether you think Oregon’s vote by mail made it’s results more or less reliable than other states’ results), and certainly can’t pass it on to friends and colleagues to inform them.

    I notice the only thing in your article readers commented on was your statement about how odd it is that Democrats are not taking on the problem of election fraud. People are reluctant to say that they can’t understand something, but my guess is that the Democratic Party inaction statement is all that they understood of what you wrote. The rest of the comments were readers describing their own voting experiences and theories.

    So, I beg you, PLEASE rewrite this article as though you were teaching a 10-year old, being especially careful to discuss one thing at a time, show each step that you used to arrive at your conclusions including the data that took you there, and HOW it showed what you believe it showed. After all, the point of an OEN article is to give info and analysis people can use to affect the political dialog.
    I wrote the letter above to send you on OEN before I found out that you block communication w/ readers there, most likely to prevent them from asking for explanations of your writing. I now see from your response to Mr. Truesdale that you have no interest in making your analyses accessible. Saying that your’re “not the easiest read”, is a massive understatement. You expect readers to psychically follow your train of thought while you throw out bits and pieces of data. Only fellow experts who already have the same data as you and have statistically analyzed it themselves have the slightest chance at figuring out what you mean. And you take it as a declaration of war if they ask you to clarify a single aspect of your conclusions. I don’t know why you’ve chosen to focus on the study of election integrity since with the way you choose to report your findings you might as well be determining another trillion places of pi, for all the societal impact they’ll have. The title of your OEN article led me to expect I’d learn something important and be able to disseminate it to others. I still had hope when I wrote the above letter. Now that I see your lack of interest in making what you know accessible, I simply resent your wasting my time. Believe me, it won’t happen again.

    • richardcharnin

      January 19, 2011 at 1:56 am

      I will try to clarify the basic points in the analysis.

      The point about Oregon is that since 2000 its recorded vote in every election has matched the True vote for Gore(47-46), Kerry (51-47) and Obama (57-41) unlike all other battle ground states. Election fraud was rampant in all other battleground states. In 2010, Senator Wyden had 57% of the vote, matching the pre-election polls – and Obama’s 2008 vote share. In the other Democratic battleground states (PA and WI), the Democrats share declined from 2008 -and they lost the senate races. This is powerful evidence that Oregon’s 100% paper ballot voting by mail system works – largely due to the mandatory handcounts of randomly-selected counties.

      I have found that most readers do not make the effort to follow the details of the statistical analysis – for any number of reasons.

      Your tone has now turned confrontational. You are obviously unfamiliar with my work on election fraud.

      “I now see from your response to Mr. Truesdale that you have no interest in making your analyses accessible”. That statement is absolutely untrue. Do you think I went through the effort so that readers would not understand the analysis? That is absurd.

      “Declaration of war”? Are you serious? Give me one example where I refused to explain the calculations.

      My analysis is fully accessible in my book, “Proving Election Fraud” and on my website Have you been there?

      I have been posting on election integrity since 2002.

      I did not purposively block readers on OEN and was unaware that it was set that way. I have always corresponded in my postings: Google TruthIsAll on Democratic Underground, Mike Malloy, Buzzflash, , etc.

      I have been wasting your time? Really? Then there is no point to further “clarify” the analysis, is there?

  4. Laura Stein

    January 19, 2011 at 5:36 am

    “…there is no point to further “clarify” the analysis, is there?”

    Only if I’m your only reader.

    If you are going to clarify, you owe it to the OEN readers who spent an hour of their life trying to understand your article there to write the clarification in the form of another article on OEN. You will be able to tell if you’ve succeeded by the content of the comments.

  5. Karen Boerboom

    June 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    It was hard to believe that Feingold lost the election. Now I know it was a (s)election! He held listening sessions in every county every year. No one, I think who was elected, did this. I wonder what Feingold will do now? The voters, will they do nothing? Karen/Platteville, WI

    P.S. I was in northern Wisconsin when Feingold first ran and went to the cocktail parties that the other two candidates were holding at the same time in the same restaurant. From listening to each of the, I made my choice of Russ Feingold. He rarely disappointed with his votes. Remember his lone stance on the Patriot Act.

    • richardcharnin

      June 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm


      I will never believe Feingold lost that election. You only have to look at what is going on in Wisconsin right now to see what the GOP is capable of. This is nothing new, The GOP has been stealing elections for decades.

  6. MalleusMaleficarum

    August 7, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Richard Charnin is a national treasure. Now that Richard has proved his case for massive election fraud in the USA, it is time that others investigate to determine the methods and identities of the election fraudsters. For a start, Richard’s warnings about the recall elections in Wisconsin should send signals to election fraud units in that state.

  7. Hiedi Strasters

    March 18, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thank you

    • Richard Charnin

      March 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm


      Please share and let me know the responses.


  8. helenofmarlowe

    October 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    This is on your WordPress blog:

    Calculating the probabilties
    The probability P that 55 of 57 exit polls would flip from the Democrats in the exit polls to the Republicans in the recorded vote is given by the Binomial distribution: P= 1-Binomdist(54,57,.5,true)
    P= 1.13E-14 = 0.000000000000011 or 1 in 88 trillion!

    Can you tell me where this comes from? I’d like to share the information at a Forum I will attend on Saturday, but the participants will want a citation.

  9. helenofmarlowe

    October 4, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Thanks. I may decide to add this quote to my latest blog (which is on this subject). If I do I will of course give you credit.
    I remember when Avi Rubin’s analysis first was published. I was up in arms and telling everyone, but no one seemed to appreciate the significance of it.

  10. John

    October 18, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Hi there, I’m an advocate for national standards for voting and voter registration as a way to reduce points of failure and increase accuracy. in elections As most of us know, with the advent of e-voting we’ve been thrust into a much more surreal orbit in regards to the veracity of “elections.” So we all know it’s wrong, that The Vote is meant to represent the will of the people, and it’s near impossible to tell now, so what are we going to do about it? “Elect” new and better politicians? I was wondering if you might begin advocating for the Article V Convention?

    Congressional Research Service, two-part paper on the Article V Convention:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Can we discuss this Richard? Your information is so purely non-partisan, that if we attach the idea of a federal convention to it, we might actually achieve the political science necessary to coerce the call out of the Congress. From there, folks like you can become delegates and build consensus about what a non-partisan amendment concerned with electoral reform might look like.

  11. Professor

    November 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Dear Richard,

    A celebrity I know says “the narrative of constantly stolen elections assumes that the Dem Party is weaker and stupider than I think it is–that it is willing to spend a billion dollars on a campaign, then throw it to the mercies of enemies who control the voting system, rather than spend the millions to start or buy one of the voting machine companies. It is a narrative that assumes, contra the evidence of LBJ 1948 and JFK 1960, among many others, that Dems don’t “steal” elections, too.
    To clean up the voting-machine problem, one should be advocating not exit polls but a return to the hand-counted paper ballot, the gold standard for vote counting. Who is it that’s in such a hurry for election results? The same media that now are pulling out of exit polling.”

    What do you say? Especially, what do you say to his question “How come Democrats don’t steal elections? They have enough money and intelligence to buy and hack voting machines, don’t they?”

    And is there a blue shift in the Kennedy and Johnson elections?

    I’m with you, but I need ammunition against him.

  12. MalleusMaleficarum

    November 11, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Richard, This appears to be the clearest precis of your work on record. I urge you to continue to expand this piece and to find better ways to explain the results of your work. The clarity is brightening for the non-mathematical readers and the awareness is increasing in direct proportion to the ramification of your narrative. Keep writing. Your message is finally beginning to gain traction.

  13. Professor

    November 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Here is another question from my celebrity.

    Have you calculated the 20% of voters who voted early in your true vote for 2012?

    My celebrity says that early voting will mar the statistical accuracy of your calculations. What do you say?

    (Btw, I am defending your side against his contempt for exit polling, so please give me some good arguments if you possibly can)

    • Richard Charnin

      November 11, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      My True Vote analysis takes into account returning voters from 2008.
      Whether or not they voted early is of no consequence.
      Your celebrity needs to read up on the True Vote Model.

      My reply to your celebrity is for him/her to provide evidence for the statement that “early voting will mar the statistical accuracy of your calculations”.

  14. Peter Jacobs

    December 13, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Richard, Thanks for the excellent work.. Statistics was always my weak side in engineering college.. However, you work really shows me how great it is to know more about probabilities.. That and also quantum physics is peaking my interest in the subject. However, my main reason to get in touch with you is to ask you do do some calculations on the 911 witnesses dying… Can you take a look into this and share.. TKS.. Peter Jacobs..

    • Richard Charnin

      December 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm

      Peter, thanks for that, but I cannot get involved at this time. First of all, you have not provided data. You need to determine the universe of witnesses (N), the number who died suspiciously(n), the weighted mortality rate (R) based on cause of death and the time period T.

      Calculate E= N*R*T, the expected number of deaths in time period T.

      The probability P of exactly n deaths is P= poisson (n, E, R, false)
      The probability PC of at least n deaths = PC = poisson (n-1, E, R, true)

  15. Ramon F Herrera

    January 4, 2015 at 2:40 am

    This is easily the worst website with the best content on the Internet. I am referring to the format, the ratio must have some sort of record.

  16. Richard Charnin

    January 5, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Best content. That’s good enough for me. The format cannot be that bad since you obviously were able to comment on the content.

  17. Peter Jacobs

    January 13, 2015 at 3:37 am

    Thanks Richard.. Your guidance already helped.. I will see if I can work through it and leave feedbacks.. TKS..

  18. David H Koehler

    March 10, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    Could you take a look at the Maine Republican primary, and the Michigan Democratic primary? I would really like to see Cumulative Vote Shares for those two unbelievable elections.

  19. Bernard Ganeles

    April 21, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    I find your work with exit poll – voter result discrepancies very interesting but do the exit polls account for the early vote that took place in many states or just the vote on primary day? If not, could this explain part of the discrepancies since I heard that the Clinton campaign put more emphasis on getting out the early vote.

  20. Kim Holleman

    January 9, 2019 at 1:34 pm

    Can we speak? I would love to ask you to cover a specific topic. Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: