KY 2015 Governor: Cumulative Vote shares indicate Likely Fraud

Richard Charnin

Nov.5, 2015

Latest Update: Nov.22

**Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004**

In the KY 2015 Governor election, Matt BEVIN (R) defeated Jack CONWAY (D) 52.5-43.8%, an 84,000 vote margin. Conway was leading in virtually all pre-election polls by 3 to 5 points yet had fewer votes than other Democrats on the ticket.

The objective of CVS analysis is to view the effects of county/precinct size on the cumulative vote share trend. Since the largest counties are usually heavily Democratic, the consistent pattern of Republican Governor candidates gaining share from small to large precincts is counter-intuitive. On the other hand, there is virtually no change in vote shares in smaller, heavily GOP counties. This defies political reality and the *Law of Large Numbers. *

The analysis indicates that the pre-election polls were likely correct and that Conway probably won the election. CVS analysis of the 2014 FL, IL, WI, MA and MD Governor elections exhibited the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares in larger counties. But the KY analysis indicates that the anomaly occurred in many smaller counties.

Precinct votes for 120 Kentucky counties were downloaded to two spreadsheets: KY2015Gov1 and KY2015Gov2

The** Summary sheet **displays recorded final vote shares and cumulative shares for 120 counties at the 10% and 25% CVS mark.

For example, in a county with 20,000 votes, the 25% CVS mark represents the first 5000 cumulative votes, starting from the smallest precinct.

**Assuming that the True Vote was at the**

** – 10% CVS mark, Conway won by 49.5-46.2%.**

** – 25% CVS mark, Bevin won by 48.7-48.3%.**

**As in previous CVS analysis, it appears that votes were stolen in Democratic strongholds. In the 25 counties in which he was leading at the 25% mark, Conway’s 11.6% margin declined to 1.5%. In the other 95 counties, Conway’s -23.3% deficit declined just 1.9% to -25.2%.**

Conway’s cumulative vote share declined from the 25% mark to the final in 53 of the TOP 60 counties, a 1 in 3 million probability! In a random process, we would expect a nearly even split. The probability is overwhelming evidence that there is an external fraud factor in the vote tabulation.

Another statistic of interest: a strong 0.33* Correlation* between county vote size and Conway’s vote share margin.

The 120 counties were sorted from largest to smallest to calculate the change in cumulative vote shares from the 25% mark. Conway’s share fell 5.6% from 53.9 to 48.3 in the TOP 15 counties; declined by 2.0% from 40.8 to 38.8 in the other 105 counties.This is a clear indication that votes were flipped in the largest counties.

The CVS method consists of the following steps:

1) Download the county precinct data

2) sort by precinct total vote

3) calculate a rolling sum of votes for each candidate

4) calculate corresponding cumulative vote shares

5) create the cumulative vote share line graph

6) check for divergence in shares from small to large precincts

7) calculate shares and changes from the 25% mark to the final

8) calculate correlation between county votes and vote shares

**Down ballot Anomalies**

Bev Harris of ** BlackBoxVoting.org** noted that the higher Democratic vote totals in the down ballot races were a “significant anomaly”.

Bevin (R) won the total recorded vote by 52.5-43.8%.

Lundergan (D) won the Secretary of State by 51.16-48.84%.

Beshear (D) won Attorney General by 50.12-49.88%

Bevin won the Top 25 counties by 49.3-47.0%.

Dem SOS candidate Lundergan won the Top 25 by 53.3-46.7%.

Confirming CVS at 10%, Conway wins by 50.1-46.2% if we add the 6.3% difference in Lundergan’s Top 25 share to Conway’s total 43.8% share.

This sheet shows two-party vote shares for Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State in the largest 25 counties.

The** True Vote Model** displays various scenarios of returning Obama and Romney voters along with corresponding vote shares. The model uses two returning voter estimates based on Obama’s 2012 recorded KY vote and his True Vote. The model matched the 2015 recorded vote assuming Obama’s recorded KY 2012 vote. It matches the CVS vote shares at the 10% mark assuming Obama’s True Vote. The Sensitivity analysis tables display Conway’s total vote shares and margins over a range of returning voter turnout and vote share scenarios of returning and new voters.

The cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the baseline for estimating the True Vote. But we may want to view changes in vote share in the 0-25% range if we assume that votes were also flipped in the smallest precincts.

Let V25 = the cumulative vote share at the 25% mark and VF = the final recorded share. The adjusted vote share (TV) is given by the formula:

TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF

For example in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. The adjusted True Vote estimate is:

**TV = 68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 9.6% + 58.8%**

The 10% mark is also used as an estimate of the True Vote.

**TOP 80 counties (895,000 votes – 92% of the total)**

Conway led by 50.6-45.2% at the 10% mark.

Conway led by 48.6-47.3% at the 25% mark.

Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 80 by 51.9-44.4%.

**TOP 60 counties (829,000 votes – 85% of the total)**

Conway led by 51.4-44.3% at the 10% mark.

Conway led by 49.5-46.4% at the 25% mark.

Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 60 by 51.2-45.1%.

**TOP 40 counties (735,000 votes – 75% of the total)**

Conway led by 50.9-44.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 50.2-46.1%, a 10.1% reduction in Conway’s margin. Assuming Conway had 113,000 (47%) of the remaining 239,000 votes in the other 80 counties. he would win by 50-46%.

**TOP 25 counties (625,000 votes – 64% of the total)**

Conway led by 51.9-43.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 49.3-47.0%, a 10.3% reduction in Conway’s margin.

**TOP 15 counties (518,000 votes – 53% of the total) **

Conway led by 53.9-41.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Conway led the Top 15 by 48.3-47.9%, a 11.7% reduction in Conway’s margin.

Given Conway’s 53.9% vote share in the Top 15 counties at the 25% mark, Bevin needed 305,000 (67%) of 455,000 votes in the other 105 counties to match his recorded vote margin (52.5-43.8%). He had 263,000 votes in the 105 counties. Given the anomalies in the TOP 15 counties, it is safe to assume that he had less than 263,000 votes.

**Sensitivity Analysis (15 scenarios)**

Conway had 40% of the recorded vote in the Bottom 60 counties, but we do not have the CVS for the group. Since we have CVS estimates for the TOP 60, we calculate estimates of Conway’s total vote using a range of vote share estimates for the Bottom 60.

1) formula, 2) 10% CVS, 3) 25% CVS. He won 12 of the 15 scenarios.

Conway ties Bevin with 40% (the break-even share) in the smallest 60 counties.

Assuming Conway had…

41% of the Bottom 60 and

– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 49.9-46.1% (36,800 votes).

– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.2-47.8% (4,700 votes).

43% of the Bottom 60 and

– 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 50.2-45.8% (42,600 votes).

– 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.5-47.5% (10,500 votes).

`Sensitivity Analysis`

Conway Formula 10%CVS 25%CVS

Top 60. 51.0% 51.5% 49.5%

Low 60.. Vote share

43% 49.8% 50.2% 48.5%

41% 49.5% 49.9% 48.2%

39% 49.2% 49.6% 47.9%

37% 48.9% 49.3% 47.6%

35% 48.6% 49.0% 47.4%

...... Vote margin (000)

43% 34.9 42.6 10.5

41% 29.0 36.8 4.7

39% 23.2 31.0 -1.1

37% 17.4 25.2 -6.9

35% 11.6 19.3 -12.7

Compare the recorded vote shares in the following county subgroups to the cumulative shares at the 25% mark. Conway leads Bevin in all groups from the Top 15 (53% of the total vote) to the Top 80 (92% of the total).

Recorded Group Votes Conway Bevin Curtis

100% All120 974,344 43.8% 52.5% 3.7%

92% Top 80 894,991 44.4% 51.9% 3.7%

85% Top 60 828,809 45.1% 51.2% 3.7%

75% Top 40 735,229 46.1% 50.2% 3.8%

64% Top 25 624,479 47.0% 49.3% 3.8%

53% Top 15 518,281 48.3% 47.9% 3.8%

25% CVS

92% Top 80 894,991 48.6% 47.3% 4.1%

85% Top 60 828,809 49.5% 46.4% 4.1%

75% Top 40 735,229 50.9% 44.9% 4.1%

64% Top 25 624,479 51.9% 43.9% 4.2%

53% Top 15 518,281 53.9% 41.9% 4.3%

Jefferson County

A Democratic stronghold, Jefferson is the largest county in KY with 192,391 recorded votes. At the 25% mark (48,000) votes, Conway led in Jefferson by 66-30%. He won the county by 58-39%. The 17% change in margin lowered his vote margin from 69,000 to 31,000. But there may have been vote flipping from zero to 48,000. Conway led by 70-27% after the first 11,500 votes.

Fayette County

There were 69,953 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, Conway led by 60-34%. He won the county by 55-40%. The 11% change lowered his margin from 18,000 to 10,000 votes.

Kenton County

There were 31,453 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, they were tied at 47%. Bevin won the county by 57-39%. The 18% change increased Bevins’ margin from 80 to 5700 votes. Conway led by 53-41% after the first 2,200 votes (7% mark).

Notes:

Cumulative Vote Shares were calculated for the following 2014 elections. All exhibited the same counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares.

**2014 KY Senate Election**

McConnell (R) defeated Grimes (D) by 56.2-40.7%, a 222,000 vote margin. In Jefferson County, Grimes had 56.1% and won by 35,000 votes Grimes’ vote share was 67.5% at the 10% CVS mark and 64.9% at 25%. But Grimes had just 53.3% from 25% to the final – an 11.6% decline. Assuming Grimes had a 64.9% True Vote, she would have won Jefferson County by 80,000 votes. Conway had 66.0% at the 25% mark and ended with 58.2%, a 7.8% decline. Grimes had 64.9% and ended with 56.1%, an 8.8% decline.

FL, IL, WI, MA, MD all exhibit the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP vote shares in largest counties/precincts. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/cumulative-vote-share-anomalies-indicators-of-rigged-elections/

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies. http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University, *Precinct
Size
Matters:
The
Large
Precinct
Bias
in
US
Presidential
Elections*, reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries.

*2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns*

http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf

My interview with Thom Hartmann on the KY election

Compare the 2014 Senate race to the 2015 Governor contest.