RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Election Fraud Slides for the “Real Deal”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 10, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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
WEB/BLOG POSTS

I created this slide presentation for an interview with Jim Fetzer (on the Real Deal). It includes links to the 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model  and to analysis of mathematicians confirming the Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis.

Mathematical models

Prove election fraud and confirm unadjusted exit polls.

True Vote (TVM) – plausible vote shares of estimated returning voter mix.
Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS) – sorted county precinct votes.
Voter Turnout (VTM) –  registered voter turnout  vs. exit poll Party-ID (forced to match)

In the 2014 Governor elections,   the models indicated that the Democrats very  likely won the True Vote in at least 6-8 elections officially won by the GOP.  The following model turnout assumptions favored the Republicans, therefore the Democrats must have done better than indicated.
TVM: 2012 presidential recorded vote understated Obama’s true vote.
VTM: Registered Republican percentage voter turnout was  higher than the Democrat.

Myth of 50/50 electorate

The Democrats would win every national election if votes were accurately counted.
They get an estimated 83% of the minority vote (30% of the electorate).
Therefore they need just 36% of white voters (70% of the electorate) to reach 50%.
1968- 2012: Census indicates 80 million more votes cast than recorded (uncounted).

Adjusted Polls

Pre-election polls are biased due to the Likely Voter Cutoff Model.
The LVCM eliminates newly registered and others (mostly Democratic) deemed unlikely to vote in adjusting the Registered Voter (RV) to Likely Voter (LV) polls.

Unadjusted exit polls are always fixed to match the recorded vote.
Corporate media-funded pollsters always assume ZERO fraud.

Unadjusted exit polls are not for public viewing.
In 2012, just 31 states were exit polled. Why?

2002 – HAVA (Help America Vote Act)
Installed unverifiable touchscreens; central tabulators.
Only a few states have a strong auditing process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2014 Governor Exit Polls: Where are the Minority Voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.2, 2016

Governor exit polls  were forced to match the recorded vote in 2014 – as is always the case. But let’s take a closer look at the RACE demographic. Minority voters share of the total vote is shown, but corresponding vote shares are missing. When estimated vote shares are included, the Democrat is usually the winner.

GOP shares of white voters appear to be inflated. So the results are conservative: The Democrats most likely did better than indicated in the tables.

The Sensitivity analysis tables show the effect of Democratic shares of white voters on the total Democratic share.

Based on True Vote, Cumulative Vote and Voter Turnout models:
IL: Quinn did better than 35% of whites.
FL: Crist did better than 37% of whites and 85% of blacks.
ME: Michaud did better than 43% of whites.
WI: Burke did better than 42% of whites and 90% of blacks.
MI: Schauer did better than  40% of whites and 89% of blacks.
KS: Davis did better than 46% of Latinos

IL 1,263
Pct Quinn Rauner Grimm Quinn Rauner Grimm
White 75% 35% 61% 4% 37% 59% 4%
Black 16% 93% 7% 1% 94% 5% 1%
Latino 6% 80% 10% 10%
Asian 2% 80% 10% 10%
Other 1% 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 41.1% 46.9% 3.2% 50.0% 46.0% 4.1%
Recorded 45.6% 50.1% 3.3%
FL 2,806
Pct Crist Scott Wyllie Crist Scott Wyllie
White 69% 37% 58% 4% 39% 57% 4%
Black 14% 85% 12% 3% 94% 4% 2%
Latino 13% 58% 38% 3% 58% 38% 4%
Asian 2% 80% 10% 10%
Other 2% 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 45.0% 46.6% 3.6% 50.8% 45.2% 4.0%
Recorded 47.1% 48.2% 4.8%
ME 1,006
Pct Michaud LePage Cutler Michaud LePage Cutler
White 97% 43% 49% 9% 46% 46% 8%
Black 1% 95% 3% 2%
Latino 2% 80% 10% 10%
Asian 80% 10% 10%
Other 80% 10% 10%
Total 100% 41.7% 47.5% 8.7% 47.2% 44.8% 8.0%
Recorded 43.4% 48.2% 8.4%
WI 2,316
Burke Walker  Other Burke Walker  Other
White 88% 42% 56%  2% 46% 53%  1%
Black 6% 90% 10% 95% 4%  1%
Latino 3% 80% 19%  1%
Asian 1% 80% 19%  1%
Other 2% 80% 19%  1%
Total 100% 42.4% 49.9%  0.9% 51.0% 48.0  1.0%
Recorded 46.6% 52.3% 0.9%
MI 2,232
Schauer Snyder  Other Schauer Snyder  Other
White 79% 40% 59%  1% 41% 58%  1%
Black 14% 89% 9%  2% 95% 3%  2%
Latino 3%  – 80% 20%  0%
Asian 2%  – 80% 20%  0%
Other 2%  – 80% 20%  0%
Total 100% 44.1% 47.9% 51.3% 47.6% 1.0%
Recorded 47.1% 51.0%  1.9%
KS 2,009
Pct Davis Brownback Umbehr Davis Brownback Umbehr
White 88% 46% 51% 3% 46% 51% 3%
Black 3% 93% 4% 3%
Latino 6% 46% 47% 7% 48% 45% 7%
Asian 1% 80% 13% 7%
Other 2% 80% 13% 7%
Total 100% 43.2% 47.7% 3.1% 48.5% 48.1% 3.4%
Recorded 46.2% 50.7% 3.2%

Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of Democratic shares of white voters on total vote.

FL Crist % Whites
Pct 37% 39% 41%
White 69% 25.5% 26.9% 28.3%
Black 14% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2%
Latin 13% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 49.4% 50.8% 52.2%
 IL Quinn % Whites
Pct 35% 37% 39%
White 75% 26.3% 27.8% 29.3%
Black 16% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Latin 6% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Total 100% 48.5% 50.0% 51.5%
 WI Burke % Whites
Pct 42% 44% 46%
White 88% 37.0% 38.7% 40.5%
Black 6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%
Latin 3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
Asian 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 47.5% 49.2% 51.0%
 KS Davis % Whites
Pct 46% 48% 50%
White 88% 40.5% 42.2% 44.0%
Black 3% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
Latin 6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
Asian 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 48.6% 50.3% 52.1%
 ME Michaud % Whites
Pct 43% 46% 49%
White 97% 41.7% 44.6% 47.5%
Black 1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Latin 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Asian
Other
Total 100% 44.3% 47.2% 50.1%
 MI Schauer % Whites
Pct 40% 42% 44%
White 79% 31.6% 33.2% 34.8%
Black 14% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3%
Latin 3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
Asian 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Other 2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Total 100% 50.5% 52.1% 53.7%

 

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 2, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

2014 Senate Exit Polls: Where are the minority voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.1, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

2014 Senate Exit Polls:  Where are the Minority Vote Shares?

It is instructive to view the 2014 Senate Exit Polls in  North Carolina, Alaska and Colorado. These were close elections won by the Republicans.

In each poll, vote shares for minority voters are missing, although the percentages of the total vote are listed.  As usual, the exit polls matched the recorded vote.  But when plausible minority vote share estimates are added, the Democrat is the winner.

North Carolina

Tillis (R) was a 48.8-47.3% winner.

Just 95% of the  2783 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote. 

Assume that Hagan won 70% of the missing Hispanics, Asians and Other voters. 

Hagan wins by 48.1-47.5%.

NC 2014
Exit Poll 2783 respondents MoE: 2.41%
Pct Hagan (D) Tillis (R) Haugh (I)
Whiite 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 1% na na na
Adj.Share 95% 44.6% 46.5% 3.2%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Hagan Tillis Haugh
White 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% 70% 20% 10%
Asian 1% 70% 20% 10%
Other 1% 70% 20% 10%
True share 100% 48.1% 47.5% 3.7%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%

 

Alaska

Sullivan (R) was a 48.8-45.6% winner.

Just 86% of 1,826 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume Begich won 94% of missing Blacks and just 50% of Hispanic and  Asian voters (conservative).

Begich is a 48.0-46.6% winner. 

AK 2014
Exit Poll 1826 respondents MoE: 2.98%
Race Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 5% na na na
Asian 6% na na na
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
Adj.Share 86.0% 39.7% 41.3% 5.1%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% 94% 4% 2%
Hispanic 5% 50% 47% 3%
Asian 6% 50% 47% 3%
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
True share 100% 48.0% 46.6% 5.5%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 5.6%

 

 

Colorado

Garner won the recorded vote by 48.5-46.0%.

A whopping 20% of 994 exit poll respondents vote shares  were not included in the poll. Assume that Udall won 95% of the missing Blacks, and  60% of  Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

Udall is a 49.1-47.0% winner.

CO 2014 Senate
Exit Poll 994 respondents MoE: 4.04%
Udall (D) Gardner (R) Other
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 13% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 3% na na na
Adj.Share 80% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
True Share
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% 95% 5% 0%
Hispanic 13% 60% 40% 0%
Asian 1% 60% 40% 0%
Other 3% 60% 40% 0%
True share 100% 49.1% 47.0% 4.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 1, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

2014 NC Senate: Election models indicate that it was likely stolen

Richard Charnin
Jan. 28, 2016

Election Models indicate that the 2014 North Carolina senate election was likely stolen.
Willis (R) defeated Hagan (D) by 45,000 votes (48.8-47.3%).

I. True Vote Model

Given: Obama lost NC in 2012 by 92,000 recorded votes (50.4-48.4%).
Hagan wins by 17,000 votes (48.5-47.9%)

Assume Obama won the True Vote by 185,000 votes (51.4-47.4%),
Hagan wins by 155,000 votes (50.9-45.5%) 

Base Case Assumptions
Assume Obama won in 2012 by 51.4-47.4%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters
3) Willis had  90% of Romney voters
4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012.
Hagan  wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

II. Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 41.7%- Republicans 30.4%- Independents 27.8%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 35.0%- Independents 29.0%
Party-ID was adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

Assumptions:
Party Registration split
61% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans turned out.
Hagan wins by 50.9-45.4% (161,000 votes).

III. Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 260,000 of 3.17 million votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Hagan had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Hagan wins by 206,000 votes (51.6-45.1%)

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/pub

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Three election models indicate that the 2014 Vermont governor election was almost stolen. Shumlin (D) defeated Milne (R) by just 2,000 votes (46.4-45.3%)

Obama won Vermont in 2012 by 95,000 recorded votes (66.1-31.0%).

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 55% turnout of Obama and 65% turnout of Romney voters
2) Shumlin had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Milne had 93% of Romney voters
4) Shumlin and Milne each had 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Shumlin won by 27,000 votes: 54.3-40.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Milne needed 22.4% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Shumlin has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 16,000 votes with 51.5%.

Best case scenario: Shumlin has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 38,000 votes with 57.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 53% of Obama and 67% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 22,000 votes with 53.0%.

Best case scenario: 57% of Obama and 63% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 32,000 votes with 55.6%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 47%- Republicans 31%- Independents 22%
59.9% of registered voters turned out.

Assumption: 59.9% of Democrats and 59.9% of Republicans turned out.
Shumlin wins by 53.4-39.2%

To match the recorded vote, Milne needed 19% of Democrats, 89% of Republicans and 40% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 11,000 of 205,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Shumlin had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Shumlin won by 55.4-38.9%.

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Maine 2014 Governor: Three models indicate a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Jan. 26, 2016

Three election models  indicate that the 2014 Maine governor election was likely stolen.

Lepage (R) defeated Michaud (D) by 30,000 votes (48.3-43.3%)
Obama won Maine in 2012 by 109,000 recorded votes (56.3-41.0%).  

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Michaud had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Lepage had  87% of Romney voters
4) Michaud  had 45% and Lepage 39% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Michaud won by 51,000 votes: 50.3-41.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 23.7% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Michaud has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 23,000 votes with 47.7%.

Best case scenario: Michaud has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 88,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 44,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 67,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 31.9%- Republicans 27.1%- Independents 41.0%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 30.0%- Republicans 31.0%- Independents 39.0%
76.2% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 74% of Democrats and 78.8% of Republicans turned out.
Michaud wins by 49.2-42.3% (42,000 votes),

To match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 29% of  Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 37% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 33,000 of 642,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Michaud had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Michaud won by 71,000 votes (51.1-40.0%)

 

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 26, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 25, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

An analysis of three election models indicates that the 2014 Michigan governor election may have been stolen.

Snyder (R ) defeated Schauer (D) by 130,000 votes (51.0-46.8%)

True Vote Model

Given: Obama won Michigan in 2012 by 450,000 recorded votes (54.1-44.6%).  
This is conservative; he likely did better.

Base Case Assumptions
1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Schauer had 91% of returning Obama voters
3) Snyder had  91% of Romney voters
4) Schauer and Snyder each had 48% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case True Vote: Schauer won by 223,000 votes: 52.4-45.3%
In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 18.7% of Obama voters

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worse case scenario: Schauer has 87% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 52,000 votes with 49.7%.

Best case scenario: Schauer has 95% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 393,000 votes with 55.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worse case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 145,000 votes with 51.2%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 300,000 votes with 53.7%.

Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 9.6% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans and a whopping 64% of Independents.

Actual Party registration: Democrats 44%- Republicans 37%- Independents 19%
Given: 60.8% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 59% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans turned out.
Schauer wins by 50.4-47.4% (94,000 votes)

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 278 thousand of 3.416 million votes cast were uncounted.

Assumption: Schauer had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Schauer won by 368,000 votes (54.3-43.5%)

Jan BenDor writes:

We already knew of this fraud from our analysis of the Detroit Mayoral election in 2009 and the Gubernatorial election in 2010. The ES&S ballot programmers, who serviced all brands of the machines, were all former Michigan Republican officials or their employees. Only three counties had their own in-house ballot programmers sworn to an oath to obey the laws and Constitution. In addition, the state requires no accounting for unused blank ballots left in the custody of the elected local Clerk. This provides a huge opportunity for absentee ballot fraud, and ballot chaining.

In 2004, when counties were ordered to decide on one brand of optical scan machine, in order to spend the state’s HAVA grant, the Republican Clerks went with their favorites, Diebold and ES&S. Sequoia was left out in the cold–it had the best security. I asked the vendor what happened to his bid. The owner of the company, Barry Miller, told me, “I have been a Republican all of my life. But I guess I didn’t give enough money to their candidates.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 25, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,177 other followers