RSS

Tag Archives: Democratic primaries

2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

2016 Democratic Primaries:  Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

Richard Charnin
June 15, 2016

Richard Charnin

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 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This  is an excellent analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of  Tilburg University -(The Netherlands) and  Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of  Stanford University  (U.S.A.) .

The authors compare exit poll and recorded results in two groups of states : 10 with paper trails and 14 without paper. They reference my exit poll spreadsheet and CVS graphs as well as the NY Times for the recorded vote data.

I added the following  calculations to the Democratic Primaries spreadsheet  referencing the Geijsel/Barrigan spreadsheet. Sanders did nearly 15% better in the 14 states with a paper trail  than the non-paper ballot states. He won the unadjusted exit polls in the 14 states by 5.2%, but lost the reported vote by 2.7%.

10 States No Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-10 65.36% 33.30% 32.06%
2-party Reported 66.25% 33.75% 32.49%
2-party Unadjusted 62.54% 37.46% 25.08%
2-party Discrepancy 3.71% -3.71% 7.41%
14 States Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-14 50.38% 47.75% 2.63%
2-party Reported 51.34% 48.66% 2.68%
2-party Unadjusted 47.40% 52.60% -5.20%
2-party Discrepancy 3.94% -3.94% 7.88%
Paper vs. No Paper (EP) -14.91% 14.91%

Steven D  of caucus99percent.com: posted this note: This is a very long post, and contains the response of the authors of the study,“Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” to critics who posted highly negative and derogatory comments to my initial blog post on this matter at Booman Tribune. Unless you are a stat geek, feel free to stop reading when you reach the section marked Attachment.  

The authors  responded to critics of the analysis:

Dear Steven,
In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn’t have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn’t know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: .

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [; . And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there’s a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they’re accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it’s the latter. Though that’s our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

Corroborating studies and links being: (also a criticism on some of the above mentioned);; ; ; ; ;

I hope to have provided you with enough ammunition to feel somewhat at ease.

Kind regards,

Axel Geijsel

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
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.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 

Advertisements
 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 2016 

Richard Charnin

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

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob of Fraud
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
Probability that at least n of 26 Exit Polls exceed the margin of error for Sanders
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image
 
45 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Primaries: Hillary wins the lottery

Richard Charnin
May 12, 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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share has exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV. The probability P that at least 11 exit polls would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

P = 1 in 76.8 BILLION = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,0.025,true)

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

The Margin of Error(MoE) is based on the number of respondents and  the vote shares:
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, 1.3 is the exit poll cluster factor adjustment. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.

The probability is based on the difference  between the exit poll share (EP) and recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If  the difference is equal to the MoE, there is a 97.5% probability of fraud.The probability is calculated using the Normal distribution
P = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true).

West Virginia

The results strongly suggest election fraud.  There were 734 respondents in the unadjusted exit poll and 763 in the adjusted final (forced to match the recorded vote). How could Sanders vote share decline by 6% with just 29 additional respondents? How could Other candidates vote share change by 7.5%?

Unadjusted:734 respondents Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 47% 59% 36% 5%
Female 53% 56% 40% 4%
Total 100% 57.4% 38.1% 4.5%
2-party  100% 60.1% 39.9%
Adjusted: 763 Forced to match recorded vote
Male 47% 53% 35% 12%
Female 53% 50% 38% 12%
Total 100% 51.4% 36.6% 12.0%
2-party  100% 58.4% 41.6%

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll      
Unadjusted -1323 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted Forced to match the recorded vote
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Summary Table

Exit poll margin of error, Sanders recorded vote share, Sanders exit poll,  difference between the exit poll and recorded vote and the estimated probability of fraud. Primaries in which the exit poll exceeded the recorded vote by at least the margin of error (at least 97.5% probability of fraud) are shown in bold.
Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit -Vote Fraud Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ (Yavapai) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
 
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
 Inline image
 Probability that at least n of 26 exit polls would exceed the margin of error
n; 1 in
1 3
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
 
31 Comments

Posted by on May 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

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 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.

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)

There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE. 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

State MoE Recorded Exit Poll Diff – MoE Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 2.2% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% -1.7% 87.3%
AZ 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 18.2% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% -2.0% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% -1.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 2.1% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% -1.4% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% -0.5% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 0.5% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% -4.0% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% -0.9% 92.1%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% -2.4% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 1.3% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% -2.1% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -3.7% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 2.4% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 1.9% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -9.1% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% -2.0% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 2.1% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% -1.4% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 0.7% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% -1.3% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% -2.1% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 3.9% 100.0%
Average 3.48% 42.43% 45.89% -0.02% 97.42%
 
 

Tags: , , , , ,