RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Entrance poll anomalies: the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses

Richard Charnin
July 25, 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
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Remember the IA and NV caucuses? They were both close, unlike  the 12 caucuses that came later in which Bernie won landslides.  

This analysis will show why the IA and NV True Votes are consistent  with the other 12 caucuses. Bernie may very well have won easily.

IA and NV had entrance polls which were adjusted  to matched the recorded vote.Clinton won the adjusted polls. NV:  52.7-47.3%  and IA:  50.1-49.9%  http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NV/Dem
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/IA/Dem

But the Party-ID Pct mix of Democrats and Independents was heavily weighted to Democrats. Using the  current mix from 2016 Gallup surveys, Sanders wins NV:  58.5-41.5% and  IA: 60.1-39.9%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

So where were all the Independent voters?
The Nevada caucus was closed.
The Iowa caucus was semi-open.

NEVADA

True Vote
NV 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 58.5% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 41.5% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100.0% 58.5% 41.5%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

Entrance Poll
NV Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 19% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 81% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100% 46.6% 53.4%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

IOWA

True Vote  
IA 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 68.2% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 31.8% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100.0% 60.1% 39.9%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

Entrance Poll

IA Party-ID  Sanders Clinton
Ind 24% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 76% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100% 47.8% 52.2%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 25, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Richard Charnin
July 23, 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
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In the 11 RED states:
– Clinton had an average 70.4% recorded share
– Independents comprised approximately 58.6% of voters
(based on 2016 Party-ID surveys)

Gallup poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Assume: Sanders won 55% of Independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPOSSIBLE 106% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

RED states
………………Pct………Sanders….Clinton
IND…………58.6%……55.0%……45.0%
Dem ……….41.4%……-6.4%……106.4%
Recorded…100.0%……29.6%……70.4%

Assume: Sanders won 45% of independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPLAUSIBLE 92% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

….2-party… Sanders
…..IND…….Recorded Vote
Avg 58.6%… 29.6%

AL 57.6%… 19.8%
AR 57.5%… 31.0%
FL 59.3%… 34.1%
GA 55.7%… 28.3%
LA 73.4%… 24.6%
MS 55.5%… 16.6%
NC 58.0%… 42.8%
SC 55.2%… 26.1%
TN 58.5%… 32.9%
TX 58.8%… 33.7%
VA 55.0%… 35.4%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 
2 Comments

Posted by on July 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

California Primary: Bernie leads in Vote Counts since Election Day

California Primary: County Votes 

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%.
Since Election Day, Bernie leads by 52.66 – 47.34%.  

Bernie’s vote share has increased over his Election Day share in every county.

In Humboldt County, the only county with Open Source Vote counting software, Bernie has a 71% two-party share, his highest in the 58 CA counties. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/humboldt/

Period………….. Votes………………Sanders……….Clinton
Elec Day (6/7)… 3,442,623………1,502,043………1,940,580
…………………………………………..43.63%…………56.37%
Current (7/6)…..5,097,033………2,373,218………2,723,815
…………………………………………..46.56%………… 53.44%
6/8 to 7/6……….1,654,410………..871,175…………783,235
…………………………………………..52.66%…………47.34%

Election Day and Post-election Democratic primary votes and shares :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  of California counties, sorted from smallest to largest, confirms the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share. One would intuitively expect that  the more progressive candidate (Sanders) would slightly gain cumulative vote share in the largest (typically liberal) urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in smaller, (typically conservative) counties, is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping in larger counties.

J.T. Waldron in electionnightmares.com:  After painstaking construction of spreadsheet data comparing batches of California 2016 Primary Election ballots counted from election day until now, elections expert John Brakey has found a pattern that is consistent with a technique that is aptly named the “strip, stack and hack” approach to election fraud.

Brakey believes California election officials, in conjunction with their vendors, managed to “strip” the vote by rendering people ineligible to use a regular ballot prior to the election, “stack” likely Clinton voters to be counted first on election day and “hack” the batch of votes to be counted later without an audit.

After more than 700,000 California voters were stripped from being counted in a timely manner when forced to vote on a provisional ballot, vote-by-mail ballots from likely Clinton voters were stacked into the piles to be counted first. This enabled the establishment to report a huge 26% election night lead by Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, which would quietly be reduced to a still shrinking single digit lead as remaining ballots continue to be counted.

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

In addition, http://embols.com/2016/07/06/ballots-with-sanders-votes-covered-with-white-out-filmed-by-election-monitors-in-san-diego/ “Citizen election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with, with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. 

The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials, which are ballots which were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official who identifies herself as “Karen Mayer,” to keep her voice down, as she questions what officials through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview of another official, “Charlie Loomis,” the IT manager, the manager confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this, as the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how the ballots, which are provisional ballots, must be processed. Mr. Loomis say he has “nothing to do with” those rules. Mr. Loomis did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View a running  total  of the number and percent of newly added voters (does not include 0.8% other Democratic candidates).

Sanders 2-party Vote Share
* recent update

Sanders Election Day Current Difference
CALIFORNIA 43.63% 46.56% 2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA* 40.2% 43.0% 2.8%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT* 68.7% 71.0% 2.3%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA * 60.2% 61.4% 1.2%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER* 42.5% 45.3% 2.8%
PLUMAS 55.0% 54.9% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE * 39.4% 43.3% 3.9%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BERNARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO * 44.5% 48.1% 3.6%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA* 49.4% 52.8% 3.4%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ * 55.6% 59.3% 3.7%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER * 44.4% 46.3% 1.8%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE * 40.7% 44.6% 3.9%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

 

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 6, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Bernie Landslide in CA Humboldt Cty (Open Source system)

A Bernie Landslide in CA Humboldt County (Open Source Voting Tabulation System)

Richard Charnin
July 2, 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
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In California there is just ONE county which uses an Open Source System to count votes. Could that be why Bernie had 71% of the 2-party vote in Humboldt County? It was his highest vote share in ALL 58 counties!  The system is a deterrent to fraud.

View the  58 California counties: Election Day and post-Election Day votes.

The Humboldt Open Source (TEVS) tabulation system was pioneered in 2006 by Mitch Trachtenberg, a computer programmer, together with Carolyn Crnich, registrar of Humboldt County and Kevin Collins, election integrity activist. The election showed significant problems in the Diebold system they were using in counting votes.

As result of these problems, Diebold abruptly severed its business relationship with Humboldt. Carolyn then switched to another voting company, Hart InterCivic, but kept the TEVS system functioning.

TEVS is the ONLY OPEN SOURCE, TRANSPARENT SYSTEM FOR COUNTING VOTES IN THE UNITED STATES  It is being used as a recounting system to double-check  the vote-counting of the Hart InterCivic system which  has been performing well, unlike the Diebold system which was used previously.

At the time she introduced TEVS, Carolyn purchased  a high speed scanner that could operate independently of any voting machine to  tabulate the votes using TEVS.

Confirmation of Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 2, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

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
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex. 

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud?  That is true;  unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

Nate must be unaware of this fact: According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by  the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling. 

It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote. 

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:  

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

  • I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

  • All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.
  • In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.
  • The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  
  • In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.
  • The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).  Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data:
Reluctant Bush ResponderEvaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from.  They come from the experts cited below –  not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false;  these factors are used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

  • Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud.  They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

  • Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

  • There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Democratic Primary True Vote Model: Sanders has 52%

Democratic Primaries True Vote Model: Bernie has 52%

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is important to note that Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his
1) recorded share  in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  
2) recorded share by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

TRUE VOTE MODEL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

1.Sanders won the caucuses with 63.9% 
2.  10% of voters  were disenfranchised  (voter rolls, provisional ballots, etc.) .
3. Sanders won 70% of uncounted votes 
4. 15% of Sanders’ votes flipped to Clinton.

Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of  flipped votes and uncounted provisional ballots  over a range of assumptions.

 Sanders NATIONAL VOTE   Sensitivity  
     Uncounted Ballots  
70% of Uncounted Votes to Sanders 5% 10% 15%
Machine counted Votes Flipped to Sanders   Sanders Total Share  
20% 51.7% 52.5% 53.2%
15% 51.2% 51.88% 52.6%
10% 50.6% 51.3% 52.0%

CALIFORNIA

Assuming a) 30% of California voters were disenfranchised, b) Sanders had 75% of provisional ballots, c) 10% of votes were flipped,  Sanders won CA with a 55% share.

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.  Sanders leads in votes counted since ElectionDay by 52.3-47.7% .  This indicates that approximately 15% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton.  Sanders  late vote share exceeded his Election Day share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

  Clinton Sanders Margin
  TOTAL RECORDED 53.47% 46.53% -6.95%
    TRUE VOTE 48.34% 51.66% 3.32%
           
CAUCUS Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
  36.1% 63.9% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
IA 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% -0.3%
NV 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% -5.3%
CO 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 18.8%
MN 38.4% 61.6% 38.4% 61.6% 23.3%
KS 32.3% 67.7% 32.3% 67.7% 35.5%
NE 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 14.3%
ME 35.6% 64.4% 35.6% 64.4% 28.7%
ID 22.0% 78.0% 22.0% 78.0% 56.0%
UT 20.7% 79.3% 20.7% 79.3% 58.6%
AK 18.4% 81.6% 18.4% 81.6% 63.3%
HI 30.1% 69.9% 30.1% 69.9% 39.8%
WA 27.1% 72.9% 27.1% 72.9% 45.7%
WY 45.3% 54.7% 45.3% 54.7% 9.4%
ND 28.5% 71.5% 28.5% 71.5% 43.0%
EXIT POLL   UNCTD ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 53.99% 46.01% 53.05% 46.95% -6.09%
VT 13.0% 87.0% 12.6% 87.4% 74.9%
NH 39.6% 60.4% 38.7% 61.3% 22.6%
WI 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
NC 56.3% 43.7% 55.4% 44.6% -10.8%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 63.1% 36.9% -26.1%
SC 68.7% 31.3% 67.8% 32.2% -35.7%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 51.0% 49.0% -1.9%
MI 46.8% 53.2% 45.9% 54.1% 8.2%
VA 62.4% 37.6% 61.6% 38.4% -23.1%
MS 83.4% 16.6% 82.9% 17.1% -65.7%
GA 65.7% 34.3% 64.9% 35.1% -29.7%
TX 61.5% 38.5% 60.6% 39.4% -21.2%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 47.9% 52.1% 4.2%
IN 44.6% 55.4% 43.7% 56.3% 12.6%
PA 54.7% 45.3% 53.8% 46.2% -7.5%
NY 52.0% 48.0% 51.0% 49.0% -2.1%
MA 46.7% 53.3% 45.8% 54.2% 8.4%
CT 51.6% 48.4% 50.7% 49.3% -1.4%
AZ 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
AL 73.2% 26.8% 72.4% 27.6% -44.8%
TN 63.2% 36.8% 62.3% 37.7% -24.6%
AR 66.0% 34.0% 65.2% 34.8% -30.3%
MD 65.6% 34.4% 64.8% 35.2% -29.5%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 47.2% 52.8% 5.7%
OK 47.8% 52.2% 46.8% 53.2% 6.3%
WV 39.9% 60.1% 39.0% 61.0% 22.0%
NO EXIT POLL   UNCTD / FLIPPED ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 54.96% 45.04% 45.77% 54.23% 8.45%
CA 54.22% 45.78% 44.62% 55.38% 10.76%
KY 50.2% 49.8% 41.5% 58.5% 16.9%
MT 46.6% 53.4% 38.8% 61.2% 22.5%
NJ 63.2% 36.8% 51.5% 48.5% -3.1%
NM 51.5% 48.5% 42.6% 57.4% 14.9%
SD 51.0% 49.0% 42.2% 57.8% 15.7%
LA 75.4% 24.6% 61.0% 39.0% -22.0%
DE 60.4% 39.6% 49.4% 50.6% 1.2%
RI 44.1% 55.9% 36.8% 63.2% 26.4%
OR 43.3% 56.7% 43.3% 56.7% 13.3%
DC 79.5% 20.5% 64.2% 35.8% -28.4%

Based on the following table of 25 Democratic primary exit polls (assuming confirmation that the WI and CT  polls exceeded the MoE), the probability P that at least 12 would exceed the MoE is
 P= 2.30E-13  or 1 in 4.3 trillion.
P= 1-binomdist (11,25,0.025,true)

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
27 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

Richard Charnin
June 13, 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

Clinton won Connecticut by nearly 18,000 votes (51.8-46.4%).

Are we to believe that CT had just a 1.4% discrepancy as shown in the adjusted CNN exit poll  while its NY neighbor had an 11.8% discrepancy ?

Assuming this ABC news preliminary exit poll screenshot is legitimate, how does one explain the 21% discrepancy between the poll and the final recorded  vote?

The preliminary exit poll  is usually released around 4:30 pm and is  based on  approximately  two-thirds of total respondents. In the CT poll, there were 1234 respondents. Assuming 800 respondents,  the preliminary exit poll had a  4.5% margin of error. For Clinton’s share to increase by 12%  (nearly triple the MoE) for just 434 additional respondents is virtually mathematically impossible.

Vote shares  adjusted to match the final CNN exit poll

CNN Final    Exit Poll 1234 Respondents…  3.63% MoE  
Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 43% 55% 2%
women 61% 55% 41% 4%
Total 50.32% 46.46% 3.22%
2-party 51.99% 48.01%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -1.48% 0.06% 1.42%
Votes 328,395 170,075 152,410 5,910
Margin 17,665

Vote shares  adjusted to match the preliminary ABC exit poll

Preliminary Exit Poll Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 25% 70% 5%
women 61% 50% 46% 4%
Total 40.25% 55.36% 4.39%
2-party 42.10% 57.90%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -11.55% 8.96% 2.59%
Votes 328,395 132,179 181,799 14,417
Margin 49,620

Inline image

 
12 Comments

Posted by on June 13, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,672 other followers