RSS

Tag Archives: Brakey

Confirmation: Bernie won California by at least 100,000 votes

Richard Charnin
July 10, 2016

My Books
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%

According to Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/still-sanders-activists-cling-to-hope-of-flipping-california/  

“They said, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won by 400,000 votes,” Palast said of the media. “Now, I want you to say this number with me: 1,959,900. That’s the number of ballots that were not yet counted. How do you say an election’s over when there are 2 million ballots left to count?”

According to Palast, those ballots had the potential to flip the election. Based on a call to the secretary of state’s office, he estimated that all of the outstanding ballots were from “no party preference” voters; based on a pre-primary poll, he estimated a 40 percentage point margin for Sanders among those ballots.

“Bernie Sanders got at least 1.25 million votes from that pile,” Palast said. “The good news is that Bernie won California. … If you count every ballot, Sanders would win by 100,000.”

J.T. Waldron  writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564

As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.

Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.

In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift:

On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.

By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers.

California primary early vote by mail exit poll

Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis 

When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties,  they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that  the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small  (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Simple California Vote share Model

Assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis- What if Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

Covert Shredding of Provisional Ballots

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

The truck bearing the slogan: Because the Outcome has to be Certain!!!

White-out Erasing of Sanders Ballots

 Election monitors in San Diego   have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials. They  were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official to keep her voice down. The election monitor questions what the officials seen through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview, Charlie Loomis, the IT manager,  confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this; the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how these  provisional ballots must be processed.  Loomis said he has “nothing to do with” those rules. He did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

Date Range Votes HRC Sanders HRC Sanders
Elec Day June 7 early 1,520,626 951,304 557,005 62.56% 36.63%
June 7 late 1,949,824 977,447 945,080 50.73% 48.47%
Elec Day Total 3,470,450 1,928,750 1,502,085 55.58% 43.28%
June 8-23 Vote by Mail 1,313,293 645,090 652,707 49.12% 49.70%
June 7-23 Total 4,783,743 2,573,840 2,154,792 53.80% 45.04%
June 9-23 Provisionl 301,824 120,247 179,163 39.84% 59.36%
Est Provis. 100,000 33,280 66,000 33.28% 66.00%
NPP 995,000 288,550 706,450 29.00% 71.00%
Total 1,396,824 442,077 951,613 31.65% 68.13%
Total 6,180,567 3,015,917 3,106,404 48.80% 50.26%
        90,488   1.46%
Update            
Brakey  Estimated 6,180,567
6/7 EDay Counted 3,470,450
Unctd 2,710,117
7/7 Unctd Counted 2,353,152
Remaining Unctd 356,965
Missing 686,210
7/7 Unctd+ missing 1,043,175
75% Sanders 782,381 Uncounted + missing
25% Clinton 260,794 Uncounted + missing
Sanders gain 521,588
Clinton margin 426,665 on June 7
Sanders margin 94,922 on July 7
Greg Palast Sanders margin 100,000
 
24 Comments

Posted by on July 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Last Train to Yuma: The Arizona 2016 Democratic Primary

Last Train to Yuma: The Arizona 2016 Democratic Primary

Richard Charnin
March 24, 2016
Updated: March 28, 2016

Arizona 2016 is the latest poster child of election fraud,  along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

Sanders won Utah (a bordering state)and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?

The  National Exit Pool of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ.  It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious. 

But  the networks called it for Hillary  with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll?

Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won  the county by 54-43%- an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes  much further than this one poll.

These are the primaries  that have been exit polled:

Primary Sanders Vote Sanders Exit Poll Difference Probability of  Diff
OK 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 0.1%
VT 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 45.8%
NC 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 27.6%
MO 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 9.8%
FL 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 9.6%
IL 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 9.2%
VA 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 9.3%
MI 50.8% 52.1% 1.3% 20.5%
AR 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 6.4%
MA 49.3% 52.1% 2.8% 3.3%
TN 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 4.5%
TX 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 0.3%
OH 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 0.1%
MS 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 0.1%
GA 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 0.0%
AL 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 0.0%
AZ (Yavapai Cty) 37.% 63.0% 36.0% 0.0%

Approximately 70% of voters were turned away because they were registered independents – and Bernie has won a solid majority of them.

John Brakey is an AZ election activist who has proven fraud. Brakey developed a spreadsheet   on the primary.  Sanders had 60% in the precincts, but Clinton had 60% in  Vote by Mail (VBM) which comprised nearly 80% of the total vote.

Pima County (Tucson) 
Hillary led VBM by 59.9-38.2%.  But Sanders led the precinct vote by 59.1-39.6% at 11:20. There were 98,303 VBM but just 25,697 precinct votes.The voting machines used were ES&S (Optiscan); Premier Accuvote (Optiscan)

Maricopa County (Phoenix) 
At 8pm HRC led VBM  by  61.5-36.1% of 114,286 votes.Sanders led the 32,959 precinct votes by 60.3-38.8%. The voting machines used were the AVC Edge (DRE); Optech Insight (Optiscan); Optech 400C (Optiscan).

Voters had to stand stand on line to vote and are angry that the primary has been called for Hillary Clinton. The majority of Bernie Sanders’ voters have not been allowed to vote.  Approximately 1.3  million voters who reportedly would have voted for Sanders were disenfranchised.  

The Arizona Republic reported that Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than 200 in the 2012 presidential election to 60. Arizona law effectively disenfranchises 36 percent of registered voters.

Registered Democrats who had voted in primaries before were told that they were not on the Democratic voting lists .  Others who switched their party were told they were not on the list – but could vote on a provisional ballot.

The fraudsters apparent goal: suppress voting on election day and rely on Clinton’s large lead among early voters to secure a win by reducing the number of polling locations.

At 2:45 AM ET, Sanders was leading Clinton in Election Day voting in Arizona 50.2% to 49.8%, with just under 75,000 votes (about 17.3% of all Election Day votes) counted.

The media called the election for Clinton with less than 1% of the vote counted and thousands of people  waiting in line to vote. Four hours after polling stations closed, hundreds of people were still waiting in line:  37% (1.219 million) of registered voters declared as independents; 34% (1.115 million) as Republicans; and 28% (932,722) as Democrats. Sanders has won a vast majority of independents in every state.

Bomb threats prevented many voters from getting the help they needed: Two hours after polls closed in Arizona, officials there had counted only 54,000 of the estimated 431,000 (12% of Election Day ballots.

Sanders has done much better in caucuses than in primaries.  He has won just 4 of 21 primaries with a 41% share but has won 11 of 12 caucuses with a 66% share. There is a 97.8% probability that the difference was not due to chance.View the graph.

The Utah primary: This is what a fair election looks like:  Note the parallel lines representing Sanders and Clinton vote shares.

UT Vote shares vs. Precinct Size
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=440801838&format=interactive

MO Vote shares vs. Precinct Size
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=844926264&format=interactive

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 

 
23 Comments

Posted by on March 24, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,