Richard Charnin
May 5, 2016
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
Election Fraud Slides
This is an analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries.
The probability is a function of the 2-party exit poll share, 2-party recorded vote share and the margin of error (MoE). An exit poll cluster effect (30%) is added to the MoE formula:
MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N), where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.
The probability P that Sanders would do better in the exit poll than the recorded vote in AT LEAST 24 of 26 primaries is P= 1 in 190,000 = 1-BINOMDIST(23,26,0.5,true)
The probability P that AT LEAST 11 of 26 would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution. P = 1 in 76.8 Billion = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,.025,true)
The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution. The probability is based on the difference (DIFF) between the exit poll share (EP) and the recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF is equal to the MoE, the probability is 97.5%. The average probability of fraud for all primaries is 97.4%.
Prob = NORMDIST (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)
This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN 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% |
Note the WI 63.6% exit poll in my calculation differs from the 56.0% exit poll result provided by CNN. A screen shot indicated that Sanders had a 68% share of white voters. His share of whites was reduced to 59% in the adjusted exit poll. In addition, according to the 2014 census, whites comprised 92.4% of registered WI voters The CNN adjusted poll indicated that 83% were whites. I used a conservative 88% in the calculation.
| Race | Percent | Sanders | Clinton |
| White | 88.0% | 68.0% | 32.0% |
| Non-white | 12.0% | 31.0% | 69.0% |
| TOTAL | 100.0% | 63.6% | 36.4% |
Sanders 2-party Recorded Vote, Exit Poll shares. Diff = Exit Poll – Recorded vote
| Sanders | Sanders | Sanders | ||||
| State | MoE | Recorded | Exit Poll | Diff | Prob | Diff > MoE |
| Average | 3.5% | 42.8% | 46.2% | 3.4% | 97.1% | – 0.1% |
| AL | 3.9% | 19.8% | 25.9% | 6.1% | 99.9% | 6.1% |
| AR | 4.0% | 31.0% | 33.3% | 2.3% | 87.0% | |
| AZ | 3.9% | 40.9% | 63.0% | 22.1% | 100.0% | 22.1% |
| CT | 3.6% | 42.1% | 52.7% | 10.6% | 100.0% | 10.6% |
| FL | 3.0% | 34.1% | 36.0% | 1.9% | 89.3% | |
| GA | 3.4% | 28.3% | 33.8% | 5.5% | 99.9% | 5.5% |
| IL | 3.5% | 49.1% | 51.2% | 2.1% | 88.0% | |
| IN | 3.5% | 52.8% | 55.4% | 2.6% | 92.7% | |
| MA | 3.5% | 49.3% | 53.3% | 4.0% | 98.7% | 4.0% |
| MD | 4.1% | 33.3% | 33.4% | 0.1% | 51.9% | |
| MI | 3.3% | 50.8% | 53.2% | 2.4% | 92.3% | |
| MO | 4.4% | 49.9% | 51.9% | 2.0% | 81.4% | |
| MS | 3.4% | 16.6% | 21.3% | 4.7% | 99.7% | 4.7% |
| NC | 3.0% | 42.8% | 43.7% | 0.9% | 72.2% | |
| NH | 2.6% | 60.4% | 58.6% | -1.8% | 8.7% | |
| NY | 3.5% | 42.1% | 48.0% | 5.9% | 100.0% | 5.9% |
| OH | 3.1% | 43.1% | 48.1% | 5.0% | 99.9% | 5.0% |
| OK | 4.5% | 55.5% | 50.9% | -4.6% | 2.3% | |
| PA | 3.5% | 43.6% | 45.1% | 1.5% | 80.0% | |
| SC | 3.1% | 26.1% | 31.3% | 5.2% | 99.9% | 5.2% |
| TN | 4.0% | 32.9% | 35.5% | 2.6% | 89.9% | |
| TX | 3.5% | 33.7% | 37.9% | 4.2% | 99.1% | 4.2% |
| VA | 3.3% | 35.4% | 37.4% | 2.0% | 88.3% | |
| VT | 2.3% | 86.3% | 86.5% | 0.2% | 56.8% | |
| WI | 3.0% | 56.8% | 63.5% | 6.7% | 100.0% | 6.7% |
| WV | 4.4% | 57.4% | 51.4% | -6.0% | 0.4% |
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/06/20/democratic-party-table-2016-primaries/
Richard Charnin's Blog 