Tag Archives: Beth Clarkson

Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

Election Fraud:  Response to Joshua Holland

Richard Charnin
April 29,2016

Last week,  actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance. Joshua Holland wrote a response in The Nation. He followed  with another hit piece attacking Robbins, Prof. Bob Fitrakis, Lee Camp, Prof. Steven Freeman and myself: On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet.

Robbins responded to Holland in the Huffington Post.  Professor Bob Fitrakis flunked Holland in Social Science 101 (exit polls).  Comedian Lee Camp also responded on his website.   Professor Beth Clarkson defended my math proof. 

 Holland wrote: Monday, actor Tim Robbins caused a stir when he tweeted out a Facebook meme, charging that CNN and The New York Times are blind to a massive conspiracy going on right beneath their noses. It had close to 1,000 retweets when Robbins apparently deleted it.

A quick glance is enough to know that there are problems with the meme. The exit poll numbers are wrong. In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results. In Alabama, CNN reports the exit polls showing Clinton with a 57-point margin, the Facebook meme claims it was 44.7 points, and the final result was 60.4 percent.

But where did Tim Robbins come up with these numbers? I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing. Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

Note: Lee Camp  responded to Holland.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, Tim Robbins explained that, “exit polls are historically pretty accurate,” and “are a heads-up on vote tampering.” Turn-trout agrees, writing, “Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against, and rough indicator of, the degree of election fraud.”

This is also the basis of claims by Wasserman and Fitrakis – who point to the precision of German exit polling to emphasize the point – and Steven Freeman, a Penn State psychologist who authored the book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count.

(Note:  Steve Freeman is not a psychologist. He holds a PhD from MIT’s Sloan School of Management where he teaches research methods and survey design).

So there you have it. They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s especially true of the internet. Here we have an example of an actor citing a comedian who picked up a claim from an an anonymous Reddit user citing preliminary exit poll data put together by a JFK conspiracy theorist. Bringing it all full circle is The Hill, which ran a story titled, “Actor Tim Robbins blames Sanders losses on ‘voter fraud,’” which will no doubt be shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I attempted to debunk allegations of widespread election fraud by the Clinton campaign that have been swirling around on social media. My argument was an appeal to common sense: If Hillary Clinton entered the race with a very large lead in the national polls and an enormous amount of support from Democratic Party activists and elected officials, as she did, and then quickly built up a significant lead in pledged delegates, as she did, then at no time since the start of the race, regardless of how unscrupulous her campaign might be, would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning.

(Note:Holland criticized  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserstein, both well-respected and prominent activists who have written books on Election Fraud). 

He wroteThat didn’t sit well with Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis, whose earlier piece for The Free Press, “Is the 2016 election already being stripped & flipped?,” I had mentioned briefly in the column. They’ve now published a lengthy broadside accusing me, and The Nation, of not being able to handle the truth when it comes to “election theft.” (It’s an odd charge, given that my Nation colleague Ari Berman has done some of the best reporting in the country on vote suppression.)

It’s unfortunate that Wasserman and Fitrakis didn’t engage my argument (or link to my piece so that readers might judge it for themselves). Instead, they waved away the idea that looking at motive is a legitimate way of evaluating the likelihood that a crime has been committed, writing that the argument was “a bit hard to follow.”

Fitrakis and Wasserman join these very serious problems with innuendo and thin evidence to claim that virtually all elections, including the 2016 primaries, are rigged. They dismiss those of us who don’t buy their claims as being incapable of handling the truth. But skepticism goes both ways, and true skeptics require more concrete evidence than Fitrakis and Wasserman are able to offer.

My response: Holland called it a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism”.   I have concluded based on 15 years of posting that when a naysayer uses the conspiracy meme, he will invariably proceed with misinformation and factual omission. And that is exactly what Holland did.

Joshua does not mention my two masters degrees in applied mathematics and that I have followed presidential elections since 1952.  He  referred to me as a  JFK Conspiracy Theorist, as if that disqualifies me from analyzing election fraud. That was a big mistake; he  apparently believes the thoroughly debunked Single Bullet Theory. That says it all. Joshua failed to do his homework on the mathematical analysis of election fraud and JFK witness deaths. He totally exposed himself as an incompetent researcher.

Holland said that the exit poll results are “wrong”.  Really? What was the basis for that statement?  He has obviously not viewed the data downloaded from CNN. Holland called the numbers “bullshit”.  His article is biased and misleading – a permanent stain on whatever credibility he has. He cannot  fool serious researchers who are aware of the facts  and  the math that prove election fraud.

Holland interviewed  Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus.  Lenski  does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts.  He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland wrote that  Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

 Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does.  If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland needs to study the historical evidence of systemic election fraud

1988-2008 Presidential Exit Polls

In spreadsheets linked from my blog, I provide 1988-2008 historical presidential vote and unadjusted exit poll data.  The Democrats led the exit polls by 52-42% but led the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the 8% discrepancy is one in trillions. Holland does not have a clue about Probability and Statistics 101. He does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The data is available if he would care to truly investigate. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

The data shows that 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008 exceeded the margin of error – and 131 moved in a “redshift” to the GOP. The probability is ZERO: E-116. That’s 116 zeros after the decimal. Holland does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy. He fails to see the significance of that fact.

The primaries

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders led hand-counted precincts in Massachusetts   by 17%, while machine counted precincts went to Clinton by 2%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

The CNN NY Primary exit poll indicated that  Sanders had 48% (officially he had 42.1%). But he may have done better than 48% since ALL exit polls are adjusted throughout the day  to the recorded vote. And hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised  when their registrations were flipped or dropped altogether. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

There was an 11.8% discrepancy between the NY exit poll  (52-48%) and the recorded vote (57.9-42.1%). The probability of the discrepancy is 1 in 120,000. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in 21 of 23 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true).  Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 9 of the 23 primaries. The probability of this result being due to chance:
P= 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23,0.025,false). Holland fails to see the significance of that.

As usual, in the recent CT, MD and PA primaries, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

This is how the Pollsters forced a match to the Indiana recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

The mainstream media (including The Nation) won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD. They never discuss malicious, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators that were built to flip the votes. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Will Holland look at the evidence which proves that the primaries are being stolen from Sanders and write about it?

Fitrakis and Wasserman responded: In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona lawsuit.But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies’ the right to vote in November.

At this point, we’re not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (, Ari Berman of The Nation, and others.But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark minutes. All that could happen again in 2016.

Over the years we’ve respected the work of The Nation’s Josh Holland, who’s expressed concern about our reporting on indications of irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie. But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we’d say so in direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004. We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we’d like to avoid the usual circular firing squad. Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our good friend Mark Hertsgaard. Mark’s writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was stolen. Quite the opposite.

But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work from The Nation and the left as a whole. If international election standards were applied to the 2016 primaries, eight states – Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee – would be investigated for suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri. The e bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are slightly different). Steve has called this “a stretch.” He and Josh seem to dismiss the assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as “conspiracy theory,” apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt. Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it’s now standard procedure to have the public numbers “adjusted” to fit official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. —–

Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told the Free Press that the computer configuration was set up to allow a “man in the middle attack” to alter Ohio’s votes.The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive swing states was by all accounts a “virtual statistical impossibility,” with the odds against that happening in the millions. But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen election is “conspiracy theory.” PLEASE!!! If someone – anyone! – can demonstrate EXACTLY how the electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.We hope in the meantime The Nation will add to Ari Berman’s fine reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth investigation into the “other shoe” of election theft – the flipping of the electronic vote count. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the “Diebold question” at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make voting secure.

Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004 that the 2008 election was being rigged. The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.  We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might have enhanced Obama’s scrutiny on the 2008 vote count. But it should be made clear that Obama’s victory could easily have been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10 million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with far less.

Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can’t be stolen? Do the Democrats need to win by 5%… 10%… to get an official victory? And what then happens to the down-ballot races? We prefer not to see those limits tested again.  And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012 Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio’s electronic machines. In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt Romney had lost Ohio. We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey’s 150+ previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable energy. Some publications that aren’t progressive understand the problem.

Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free Press reporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private, for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines. Over the years we’ve been repeatedly told that we should stop reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will be another massive vote count victory that will be “too big to steal.” Frankly, we don’t see that happening this year. And we find such talk deeply disturbing.

We have no doubt that innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years, along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control of our government. We’re also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie is likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona. And anyway … why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a problem unsolved?

This disease needs a definitive cure. We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in California.Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joining us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women’s health centers, the shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft( and Bob’s Fitrakis Files are at Harvey’s Organic Spiral of US History is coming soon at

The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

I challenge Holland to try to refute  the data and analysis in these books:
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

 Perhaps Holland will learn something and see the significance of these posts:…/1988-2008-unadjuste…/




Posted by on April 29, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


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

KS 2014 Governor Election: Four models indicate fraud

Richard Charnin

Jan. 27, 2016

Four election models indicate that the 2014 Kansas governor election may have been stolen. Brownback (R) defeated Davis (D) by 33,000 votes (49.9-46.1%).

I Cumulative Vote Shares

PhD Mathematician Beth Clarkson has sued for the KS poll tapes

Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.

II True Vote Model

Obama lost Kansas in 2012 by 252,000 recorded votes (59.7-38.0%).

Base Case Assumptions
1) 66% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Davis had 93% of returning Obama voters
3) Brownback had  78% of Romney voters
4) Davis had 50% and Brownback 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case Scenario: Davis wins by 1,000 votes: 48.1-48.0%
Note: Obama had 42% in the final pre-election poll. If Obama’s True Vote was 41%,  then Davis won the True Vote by 50-46%.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Davis has 89% of returning Obama and 17% of Romney voters.
Davis loses by 40,000 votes with 45.7%.

Best case scenario: Davis has 97% of Obama and 21% of Romney voters.
Davis wins by 41,000 votes with 50.5%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 64% of Obama and 68% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis loses by 15,000 votes with 47.1%.

Best case scenario: 68% of Obama and 64% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis wins by 17,000 votes with 49.0%.

III Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 25%- Republicans 47%- Independents 28%
Party registration: Democrats 24.3%- Republicans 44.1%- Independents 31.6%
62.7% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 62.7% of Democrats and 62.7% of Republicans turned out.

Davis wins by 48.1-48.0%
To match the recorded vote, Brownback needed 13% of  Democrats, 79% of Republicans and 38% of Independents.

IV Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 113,000 of 962,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Davis had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Davis wins by 62,000 votes (51.2-44.8%)

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

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

2014 Election Fraud: Four statistical models

2014 Election Fraud:  Four Statistical Models

Richard Charnin
Dec. 28, 2015
Updated: Jan.18, 2016

This post reviews the following statistical models which strongly indicate fraud in the 2014 Governor elections:
1) True Vote Model, 2) Cumulative Vote Shares, 3) Voter Registration vs. Exit Poll Party-ID, 4) Uncounted Votes Cast (Census).

Democratic Vote Shares: Statistical Summary

Dem Vote% CVS TVM Census D/R ExitP D/R Registered
KY 43.8 49.1 48.0 49.3 na 54-39
MD * 47.2 52.9 56.4 59.1 na 55-26
WI 46.7 50.2 51.6 51.3 36-37 43-41
FL 47.1 51.1 49.7 50.9 31-35 39-35
IL 46.4 54.4 54.2 54.8 43-30 47-35
MA 46.6 55.9 55.6 56.5 na 35-11
CO 49.1 na 50.7 53.1 28-32 31-33
GA 44.8 na 48.2 52.2 35-37 39-43
KS 46.1 na 48.3 52.0 25-48 24-44
ME 43.3 na 51.5 52.3 30-31 33-27
MI 46.8 na 52.4 54.3 39-30 44-37
OH 32.9 na 37.7 41.7 32-36 41-42

Cumulative Vote Shares

The CVS method  uses actual precinct votes in each county. The data is sorted by  precinct size. The votes and shares are accumulated and  displayed graphically. Typically, in the biggest counties, Democratic shares peak at the 10% CVS mark and decline at the final 100% (recorded vote). This is counter-intuitive because a) the most populous counties are in urban locations which are strongly Democratic and b) as the number of votes are accumulated, the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) should result in a Steady state of equibrium in which Democratic and Republican vote shares are nearly constant.

Click these links to view the summary 2014 CVS analysis (each has a  link to the precinct votes for each county):  IL  FL  WI  MD MA  KY

The True Vote Model (TVM)

The 2012 presidential election is used as a basis for returning 2014 voters. There are two options for estimating  returning voters: the Recorded Vote and estimated True Vote.

The TVM closely matched the CVS in all governor elections except  for Maryland.  Hogan(R) won the recorded vote by 51.0- 47.2%, a 66,000 vote margin.  Brown(D) won the True Vote by 56.4-41.9%, a 251,000 margin. The CVS analysis understates Brown’s vote since precinct votes were provided only for Election Day; early, provisional and absentee precinct voting were not included. This omission dramatically reduced  Brown’s CVS since he had 54% of the excluded votes.  Click these links to view the 2014 Governor True Vote Model:  MD  IL  FL  WI  KY MA ME  OH KS MI GA CO

In each election cycle, the Census Bureau interviews 60,000 households nationwide to estimate  how many were registered and voted in each state.The national margin of error (MoE) is 0.3% for 60,000 respondents at the 90% confidence level. The MoE is approximately 2% for each state.

In 2014, 92.2 million votes were cast  but just 78.8 million recorded. The 13.4 million discrepancy (14.5%) was greater than in any presidential election. What is going on here?

In every one of the 1968-2012 presidential elections,  votes cast exceeded the recorded vote. The percentage of uncounted votes has declined steadily since 1988, from 10.4% to 2.9% in 2012. Uncounted votes peaked at 10.6 million in 1988 and declined to near zero in 2008. Approximately 75% of uncounted votes were Democratic (50% in minority locations).

The recorded vote was adjusted  to total votes cast by adding the uncounted votes. The majority (60-75%) of uncounted votes were  assumed to be Democratic, based on the historical fact that approximately 50% of uncounted votes are in minority locations.

Uncounted Votes = Census Total Votes Cast – Votes Recorded
True Vote (est.) = Recorded Vote + Uncounted vote

Presidential  Votes Cast and Recorded

Cast Recorded Diff Pct
1968 79.0 73.0 6.0 7.6%
1972 85.8 77.7 8.1 9.4%
1976 86.7 81.5 5.2 6.0%
1980 93.1 86.6 6.5 7.0%
1984 101.9 92.7 9.2 9.0%
1988 102.2 91.6 10.6 10.4%
1992 113.9 104.4 9.5 8.3%
1996 105.0 96.4 8.6 8.2%
2000 110.8 105.6 5.2 4.7%
2004 125.7 122.3 3.4 2.7%
2008 131.1 131.4 -0.3 -0.2%
2012 132.9 129.1 3.8 2.9%
2014 92.2 78.8 13.4 14.5%

Political Party Strength 

The simplest measure of  party strength in a state’s voting population is the breakdown-by-party totals from its voter registration statistics from the websites of the Secretaries of State or the Boards of Elections. As of 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to indicate a party preference when registering to vote.

In 2014,  the party voter preference/registration split was 40.5D-35.3R-24.2I.  The  2014 National Exit Poll indicated a 35D-36R-28I Party-ID split in forcing a match to the recorded vote (Dem 46.2-Rep 52.9%). Assuming the voter registration split and the Party-ID vote shares, the Democrats  and Republicans were essentially tied.

The registered voter split for the 12 Governor elections in this analysis was 40.6D-34.4R-24.4I, a very close match to the national split.

These 22 states do not allow party preference in voter registration:
Alabama,Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The partisan “demographics”  were obtained from the state’s party registration statistics (in late 2014 whenever possible). For the 22 states that don’t allow registration by party, Gallup’s annual polling of voter party identification is the next best metric of party strength.

National Exit Poll 2014 Party-ID (match recorded vote)

Party-ID Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 35% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 36% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 29% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 46.2% 52.5% 1.9%
Registration Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 41% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 35% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 24% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 49.6% 48.7% 1.7%

Matching the Recorded and True Vote using the Party Registration split

To match the recorded vote,  an implausibly low  percentage of Democrats had to have voted for the Democratic candidate. Note the difference between  the percentage of Democrats required to match the recorded vote and True vote shares. Democratic and Republican candidates usually win approximately 90-92% of  registered Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Percentage Share of Registered Democrats Required to Match

 Match Recorded Vote True      Vote  Match Recorded  True Vote
MA 58.5 83.9 ME 66.6 92.0
MD 68.9 84.9 OH 53.5 92.1
KY 72.4 81.7 KS 86.1 95.5
WI 88.8 94.7 MI 75.5 88.1
FL 81.3 88.1 GA 87.7 93.3
IL 83.0 91.0 CO 88.6 93.8


Conway (D) lost the recorded vote  by 52.5-43.8% despite the fact that the Democrats led 53.4-38.8% in voter registration. Bevin needed an implausible 24.6% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. Assuming just 81.7% of Democrats voted for Conway, he won by 48.8-47.5%, closely matching the CVS and True Vote.

According to the 2014 Census, 1.525 million total votes were cast in 2014.  In 2015, Conway won by 49.3-47.0% – assuming he had 60% of an estimated 50,000 uncounted votes.

Of 2,298,000 registered  voters, 974,000 (42.4%) voted. If  39% of Democrats voted and Conway had 88%, he won by 49.0-47.3%. If 43% of Democrats voted, he won by 54-42.3%.

Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 72.4% 24.6% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
Recorded 100% 43.8% 52.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 427 511 36


Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 81.7% 15.3% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
True Vote 100% 48.8% 47.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 475 463 36


Votes Cast Total Conway Bevin Curtis
Recorded 974 426.6 512.0 36.0
Uncounted (est) 50 30.0 18.2 1.9
2014 Census 1024 505 481 38
Adj. Share   49.3% 47.0% 3.7%


Party Reg Split Conway Turnout 39%  41% 43%
Democrat 53.4% 88% 18.3% 19.3% 20.2%
Repub 38.8% 6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0%
Other 7.8% 50% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7%
Conway 49.0% 51.5% 54.0%
Bevin 47.3% 44.8% 42.3%



Hogan (R) won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.3%. Brown(D) had 53.7% of early votes, 45.3% on Election Day and 54.5% of absentee and provisional ballots. Precinct votes on touchscreens and optical scanners were provided for Election Day only.

When 295,000 uncounted votes are added to the recorded vote, Brown is the winner by 51.2-47.0% .  When  Election Day CVS  at the 10% mark is added to the 390,000 early, absentee and provisional votes, Brown is a  52.9-45.5% winner.

 Census Votes (000) Total Brown Hogan Other
True 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted (Unctd) 295 221 68 5
Total Census 2,028 1,198 794 35
Share   59.1% 39.2% 1.7%


Voter Reg Pct Brown Hogan Other
Democrat 54.9% 84.9% 13.1% 2.0%
Republican 25.7% 4% 95% 1.0%
Other 19.4% 45% 53% 2.0%
Share 100% 56.4% 41.9% 1.7%
Total 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted Total Brown Share Hogan Share Other Share
Early 306 164 53.7% 137 44.8% 4.5 1.5%
Election Day 1,342 608 45.3% 711 52.9% 23.5 1.7%
Absentee/prov 85 46 54.5% 37 43.4% 1.8 2.1%
 Recorded 1,733 819 47.25% 884 51.0% 30 1.7%
 CVS adj
Early/abs/prov 390 210 53.9% 174 44.5% 6 1.6%
CVS @ 10% 1,391 693 52.5% 603 45.7% 23 1.7%
Adj. Total 1,709 904 52.9% 777 45.4% 29 1.7%

Notes:- Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, did an analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies: How Trustworthy are Electronic Voting Systems in the US

– A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes:Precinct
 Matters: ­

– Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries:2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

– Kathy Dopp is a mathematician and an expert on election auditing. She has written a comprehensive analysis of the 2014 elections:
Were the 2014 United States Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections Manipulated?  Dopp wrote:
Is it possible electronic vote-count manipulation determines who controls government in the United States? The probability that the disparities between predicted and reported 2014 election vote margins were caused by random sampling error is virtually zero. A method for extending and simplifying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA)’s measure for necessity reveals that lack of effective post-election audits is a necessary condition for the occurrence of high levels of disparity between statewide polls and election results. Maryland’s 2014 gubernatorial contest is consistent with an explanation of vote miscount having altered its outcome.  An analysis of Maryland’s partisan voter registration, turnout, and vote data by ballot type statistically confirms vote miscount as an explanation for its unexpected outcome.

Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and Kansas gubernatorial contests exhibited sufficient disparities between polls and election results (PED) to alter election outcomes; all used inauditable voting systems or failed to conduct post-election audits (PEA)s. Vermont’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, and South Dakota PED were large but smaller than winning margins.

Kansas and North Carolina senatorial contests exhibited sufficient PED to alter election outcomes and no audits were conducted. Virginia’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Arkansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Nebraska PED magnitude were large but smaller than winning margins.

A case study of Maryland’s unexpected 2014 gubernatorial outcome affirms there is, as yet, only an explanation of vote manipulation consistent with the statistical disparity patterns in Maryland’s pre-election poll predictions, and its partisan voter registration, turnout and vote data by ballot type.



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

A Collage of Election Fraud Graphics



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