RSS

Tag Archives: early voting

Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 23, 2012
Updated: Aug.2, 2015

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there were repetitive patterns in the cumulative county vote shares in five recent Wisconsin elections. The patterns are obvious; the county graphs are virtual duplicates.

This post is a work-in-process, but since the data tables and graphs are completed, I wanted to make them available while the analysis is ongoing.

The following counties appear most anomalous: Brown, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Croix, Milwaukee, Oneida, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Sheboygan, Trempealeau, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago.

Republican vote shares are increasing (lines slope upward) while Democratic shares decrease (slope downward) at the same rate. This is an indicator of likely vote switching.

Summary of Key Walker Recall Results
Walker won the recall by 171,000 votes (53.1-46.8%).

In 15 large counties, Barrett’s vote shares at 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 54.2%, 52.1% and 48.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.51 million of the total 2.52 million recorded votes.

Milwaukee County is the largest and most anomalous. In the recall, Barrett had 63.3% of the total 396,000 votes. But he had 74.4% at the 25% mark, 70.4% at 50% and 66.5% at 75%. Looking at Barrett’s shares in terms of remaining votes, he had 59.4% of the final 75%, 55.9% of the final 50% and 53.0% of the final 25%. In other words there was a 21.4% decline in Barrett’s 74.4% vote share of the first 100,000 votes to 53.0% in the final 100,000 votes.

Barrett’s True Vote Model 54.4% share is within 0.2% of his 15 county cumulative share at the 25% mark. His total Wisconsin share (assuming an equal level of fraud in the other 57 counties) was 52.4%.

In the 15 counties, there was a 6.0% difference between Barrett’s 54.2% at the 25% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 6.1% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 52.4% Wisconsin True Vote share.

In the 15 counties, there was a 4.0% difference between Barrett’s 52.1% at the 50% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 4.0% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 50.3% Wisconsin True Vote share.

2008 Presidential Election
The cumulative vote analysis essentially confirmed the unadjusted exit poll. Obama won the WI recorded vote by 56.2-42.7%. He won the unadjusted exit poll 63.3-35.7%, a 7.1% increase over the recorded vote share.

In 15 of the largest counties, Obama’s vote shares at the 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 62.4%, 60.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.85 million (62%) of the 2.98 million total recorded votes.

Democratic votes shares declined by an average of 6.0% from the 25% mark to the final recorded vote:


15 Wisconsin Counties
Democratic Vote Share Trend
15 Wisconsin Counties
(Votes in thousands)
.................... Percent of total vote

15 Counties Votes 25% 50% 100% Change
2008 Obama 1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07% 5.31%
2010 Feingold 1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69% 6.02%
2010 Barrett 1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23% 6.81%
2012 Barrett 1551 54.24% 52.11% 48.14% 6.10%
2014 Burke 1511 53.96% 52.22% 48.50% 5.46%

The Spreadsheets
The following spreadsheets use data provided by GAB. Note that Milwaukee County is displayed at the top of the screen in each spreadsheet to illustrate the similar cumulative vote pattern in each of the four elections.

2014 Governor
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

2012 Walker recall (contains voting machine types for each county and municipality).

2010 Governor

2010 Senate

2008 Presidential

In the process of working on analysis of Wisconsin elections, I have developed a number of models and databases which are available online as Google Doc spreadsheets. They can be linked to from the following posts:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2011-wisconsin-supreme-court-recall-elections/

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , ,

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 1, 2013

Given 1) early voting (mail-in or hand-delivered paper ballots) and 2) late vote (absentees, provisional ballots) and 3) the total recorded vote, what is the Election Day vote share required to match the recorded vote?

This 2012 election fraud analysis shows that Obama’s Election Day vote share was 3% lower than his total recorded share (a 6% discrepancy in margin). It is a strong indicator that votes were stolen on Election Day. Obama’s late vote share was 10% higher than his Election Day share.

In 2012, there were 11.677 million late recorded votes (9.0% of the total). The late vote for each state is the difference between the current and Election Day votes. Obama had 60.2% of the two-party late vote and 51.96% of the total two-party vote.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama’s weighted aggregate state late vote was 57-39%, just 1% lower than the weighted exit polls and the True Vote. In 2012, it was 54-42%, closely matching the 56% two-party True Vote model share.

In 2008, approximately 30% of total votes were cast early. Early vote rates for each state were set to the 2008 rate. Early vote shares were based on information supplied to the media. If the early vote estimate was not available, the assumption is that Obama did 2-3% lower in early voting than late.

Obama’s True Vote margin is estimated to be 15.7 million (56.1-43.9%).

Total Votes Recorded = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote

In order to determine the Election Day vote, a simple trial and error (goal-seeking) procedure was used by adjusting the Election Day share until the total share matched the recorded vote. This is analogous to the exit pollsters stated procedure of adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote in each demographic cross tab by changing weights and/or vote shares. The National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote in a number of elections by adjusting actual exit poll results using mathematically impossible weightings (millions more returning voters from the previous election than were alive to vote in the current election).

In this analysis, we use actual early and late recorded vote data to determine the Election Day 2-party share required to match the total recorded vote. We use “goal-seeking” to determine the fraud component that the media ignores.

On Election Day, Votes cast on optical scanners and DREs are vulnerable to miscounts on the central tabulators.

Florida
Percent of total vote: Early 52%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (49.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Ohio
Percent of total vote: Early 25%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.4%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Iowa
Percent of total vote: Early 36%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (51.1%), Romney needed 70% on Election Day.

North Carolina (zero late vote?)
Percent of total vote: Early 60%; Late 0%
To match his 2-party share (47.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

California
Percent of total vote: Early 45%; Late 27%
To match his 2-party share (38.1%), Romney needed 46% on Election Day.

Arizona
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 29%
To match his 2-party share (54.9%), Romney needed 60% on Election Day.

Virginia
Percent of total vote: Early 14%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.0%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

New Mexico
Percent of total vote: Early 62%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (45.1%), Romney needed 48% on Election Day.

Georgia
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 1%
To match his 2-party share (53.1%), Romney needed 58% on Election Day.

National Vote – forced to match the recorded share
How Voted (2-party)………….Votes Pct Obama Romney
Early voting (paper)…………40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0%
Election Day…………………75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0%
Late Votes (paper)…………..11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%

Recorded Share……….126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%
Total Votes (mil)………………………… 65.85 60.98

…….. Obama Election Day %
…….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early Obama Share
56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4%
55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1%
49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1%
Margin
56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2
55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4
49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , ,

Early Voting: good for Obama. Election Day Voting: not so much

Early Voting: good for Obama. Election Day Voting: not so much

Richard Charnin
Oct. 15, 2012

Note:This is the final Nov.5 projection: 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model.

Click this link to the final 2012 forecast. It was exactly right: Obama had 51.6% (2-party) and 332 EV with a 99.6% win probability. But his True Vote was 55% with 380 EV. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/4380/

The 2008 Election Model also predicted Obama’s recorded vote exactly at 365 EV and 52.9% with a 100% win probability. But his True Vote was 58.0% with 420 EV. http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm

Early voting appears to be strongly for Obama – just like in 2008. This analysis compares early voting by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots to Election Day voting.

The objective is to estimate 2008 Election Day vote shares for each state given its early voting percentage, unadjusted exit poll and recorded vote share.

In 2008, 40.6 million (30.6%) of 131.3 million votes were cast early on paper ballots that were hand-delivered or mailed in. Mail-in ballots accounted for 31.7% of early votes.

Analysis of 2008 exit poll data shows that the states which voted early had the highest percentage of early votes had the lowest exit poll discrepancies (red-shift).

Obama had 58.0% in the state exit poll aggregate, but just 52.9% recorded. The assumption in this analysis is that early vote shares were approximately equal to the unadjusted exit polls – and Obama’s True Vote.

Election Day vote shares required to match the recorded vote are calculated using this formula:

Election Day share = (Recorded share – Early vote share) / Election Day share of total vote

Therefore, Obama’s estimated Election Day share was approximately:
50.5% = (52.9 – 58.0*.31) / .69 = (52.9-17.8) / .69

Note: Obama’s total early vote was equal to his 58% exit poll times the early voting share of the total recorded vote. Therefore, assuming Obama had 58% of the 31% who voted early, he must have had a 50.5% share on Election Day. The 7.5% discrepancy from his True 58% share was likely due to the systemic election fraud factor.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 15, 2012 in 2012 Election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

Voting Early (Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)

This 2008 analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states that voted early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots. Approximately 30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.

In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift) are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would intuitively expect.

The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average 2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average 6.8% red-shift.

For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-delivered paper ballots early/hand-delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).

This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift decreases. Note that the three points at the extreme right represent CO, WA, OR.

Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7% of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.). The remaining 63% that were recorded on Election Day were a combination of DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since 30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on unverifiable DREs, then about 50% of Election Day voting was on DREs. And that explains why exit poll discrepancies were highest in states that only had Election Day voting.

Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper ballot) votes? How did the Democratic Late Vote share compare to the overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since late votes were cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee, etc.), the Democrats did much better.

Proof: there were 121 million votes recorded before or on Election Day. Obama had 52.4%. But he had 59.2% of 10 million late recorded votes.

Here is the takeaway: If you have the option, vote early using paper ballots. Don’t wait until Election Day to vote in cyberspace. And lobby election officials to mandate that, at minimum, the paper ballots are hand counted in randomly selected precincts or counties.

Election activists who are opposed to voting early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots should check out Oregon, Washington and Colorado. Oregon installed its vote-by-mail system in 1998. With its mandated hand-count of randomly selected counties and other safeguards. Since 2000, Oregon has by far the best record of all the battleground states based on various statistical measures of accuracy. Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote: 55.2%, 380 EV

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 4, 2012 in 2008 Election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis