RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Democratic Primaries 4/26: Exit Poll anomalies (continued)

Richard Charnin
April 27, 2016

There were three exit polls yesterday in CT, MD, PA.  Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in two of the three elections. His share has declined in 20 of 22 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 16,500 = binomdist(2,22,0.5,true)

As usual, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%

The pollsters ALWAYS force the unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote. Where are the unadjusted exit polls?  The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) discusses the matching process in Explaining Exit Polls.

In close races, the projection models also employ actual vote totals, first in sample precincts as it becomes available and then at the county level for all counties in a state as they become available. It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did.

Note: It’s not just in close races. Unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote in ALL races. The pollsters need to provide the actual exit poll respondent data for all precincts.  They need to provide the data and then explain the rationale for making the adjustments to match the vote. But they won’t. Ask yourself WHY? 

The AAPOR never mentions election fraud as a likely cause of the discrepancies. In actuality all of the adjusted exit poll crosstabs contaminate the true statistical results and are misleading as they do not reflect the the actual responses of those exit polled.

Exit pollsters at Edison Research should not be making adjustments. But it is standard operating procedure. It is unscientific and hides the actual exit poll results. It serves to cover-up the fraud which is measured by the recorded vote discrepancy .

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/ma-primary-unadjusted-exit-poll-indicates-bernie-won/

Final Adjusted Exit Polls (forced to match the recorded vote)

CT
1234 total respondents
 Pct Clinton Sanders
men 39% 43% 55%
women 61% 57% 41%
Total 51.54% 46.46%
2-party 52.59% 47.41%
Recorded 52.60% 47.40%
Diff 0.01%
MD
1364 total respondents
 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 39% 55% 40%
women 61% 68% 29%
Total 62.93% 33.29%
2-party 65.40% 34.60%
Recorded 65.50% 34.50%
Diff 0.10%
PA
1425 total respondents
 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 39% 49% 50%
Women 61% 60% 39%
Total 55.71% 43.29%
2-party 56.27% 43.73%
Recorded 56.10% 43.90%
Diff -0.17%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1591963017

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/pa/Dem

Inline image

 

 
13 Comments

Posted by on April 27, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

The NY Democratic Primary Quiz

The NY Democratic Primary Quiz

Richard Charnin
April 23, 2016

There were 1307 NY Exit Poll  respondents at 9 pm and 1391 at the final – an increase of just 84 respondents.  Adjustments made to force the final 1391 exit poll to match the recorded vote in all exit poll categories are mathematically impossible. Therefore, the recorded vote was also mathematically impossible. The impossible adjustments are irrefutable proof of election fraud.

Let’s review the adjustments as a quiz.

1. At 9pm, Clinton had a) 51%, b) 52%, c) 53%
2. Clinton won the recorded vote with a) 57.3%, b) 57.7%, c) 57.9%
3. She had 28% of 18-29 year-olds. In the final she had a) 33%, b) 35%, c) 37%
4. She had 45% of males. In the final she had a) 49%, b) 50%, c) 51%
5. She had 71% of blacks. In the final she had a) 74%, b) 75%, c) 76%
6. She had 57% of Democrats. In the final she had a) 60%, b) 61%, c) 62%
7. She had 55% of Urban voters. In the final she had a) 59%, b) 60%, c) 62%
8. At 9pm, Urban voters comprised 55% of the total vote.
At the final, they comprised a) 62%, b) 64%, c) 66%

9. At 9pm, Clinton had 680 (52%) of 1307 respondents. She had 802 (57.9%) at the final (1391), an increase of 122 among the 84 final respondents.
This was a) a polling error, b) of no consequence, c)an absolute indicator of fraud.
10. At 9pm, Sanders had 622 (48%) and 589(42.1%) at the final, a 33 vote decline.
This was a) a polling error, b) of no consequence, c)an absolute indicator of fraud.

11.The probability of the 11.8% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote is
a) 1 in 91,000, b) 1 in 94,000, c) 1 in 102,000
12. The probability that Sanders exit poll share would be greater than his recorded share in        20 of 22 primaries is a) 1 in 13,200, b) 1 in 16,500, c) 1 in 39,700
13. In the NY Cumulative Vote Share analysis, Sanders and Clinton were tied after
a) 400,000, b) 500,000, c) 600,000 of 1.79 million total votes

Answers
1b, 2c,3b,4b,5b,6c,7c,8b,9c,10c,11c,12b,13c

 
14 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

NY Democratic Primary: More frustration

NY Democratic Primary: More Frustration

Richard Charnin
April 20, 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

Momentum was on Bernie’s side. He had just won a solid victory in Wisconsin. Now he was coming home. A Brooklyn native, he was drawing great crowds. The following entertainers gave speeches on his behalf: Harry Belafonte, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, Spike Lee, Rosario Dawson.

Pre-election polls showed that Hillary was a likely winner. But Bernie had the Big Mo; he would overcome the systemic fraud which plagued his campaign in the primaries.

NYC was a natural for Bernie, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was a senator for eight years. But it was Arizona all over again. Thousands of voters reported their registrations were changed or dropped.

Only 22% of approximately 8 million registered voters turned out. Clinton won by 57.9-42.1%. 

The UNADJUSTED exit poll indicated a close race. Hillary led  by just 52-48%,  an 11.8% discrepancy from the recorded vote.  There were 1391 respondents and a 2.6% exit poll Margin of Error. Clinton led by a whopping 62-38% in the vote count with 33% of precincts reporting.

At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-627 (52.0-48.0%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton’s lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and  Sanders had 38 fewer.

How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders’ total drop?  They can’t. It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.

CNN Exit poll- Gender Clinton Sanders
1307 respondents 9:03pm 680 627
 Vote share 52.0% 48.0%
Final EP: 1391 respondents 802 589
Adjusted Vote share 57.7% 42.3%
Change: +84 respondents  +122  -38

This excellent comprehensive analysis confirms that THE NY PRIMARY EXIT POLL USED IMPOSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE.

In 2014, NY voter registration  was  49D-24R-27I. The split was 85D-15I in the exit poll, which (as always) was forced to match the 57.9-42.1% recorded vote.

Assuming primary voting was proportional to registration, the split would have been 65D-35I and the race would have been a tie.  If Clinton had 58% of Democrats, Sanders won the election by 52.5-47.5%.

Final Exit Poll (adjusted) Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 85% 62% 38% 24%
Independents 15% 28% 72% -44%
 Total 100% 56.9% 43.1% 13.8%

 

2014 Registration Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 65% 62% 38% 24%
Independents 35% 28% 72% -44%
 Total 100% 50.1% 49.9% 0.20%
True Vote Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 65% 58% 42% 16%
Independents 35% 28% 72% -44%
Total 47.50% 52.50% -5.00%

Assuming that Sanders’ 48% exit poll was accurate, he must have won the election due to thousands of suppressed votes. Sanders True Vote = 48% exit poll + suppressed vote.

Let’s assume that 5% of registered voters (400,000) were disenfranchised and Sanders had 75%. Then he had 52.9% assuming his 48% exit poll share.

The following table is a sensitivity analysis of Sanders share as a function of his share of the suppressed vote and the exit poll. As you can see, Sanders wins 24 of the 25 scenarios.

Sanders%   Suppressed Vote
Sanders 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0%
Exit Poll   Sanders  True Vote
50% 52.7% 53.6% 54.6% 55.5% 56.4%
49% 51.9% 52.8% 53.7% 54.6% 55.6%
48% 51.1% 52.0% 52.9% 53.8% 54.7%
47% 50.3% 51.2% 52.1% 53.0% 53.9%
46% 49.5% 50.4% 51.3% 52.2% 53.1%

As always, the final CNN exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NY/Dem

View the Early Exit Poll vs. Final (matched to recorded vote) vs. True Vote

 

Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 126,000.
 P = 1- normdist(0.579,0.52,.026/1.96, true)

Sanders’ exit poll share declined in the recorded vote in 18 out of 19 primaries.
The probability: P=1-binomdist(17,19,.5,true) =  0.000038 = 1 in 26,000.

Cumulative Vote Shares

NY Primary Congressional District  cumulative vote shares indicate a  trend to Clinton with increasing district size reminiscent of increasing, non-intuitive GOP vote shares in Governor and Senate elections. 

Inline image

Final NY Exit Poll – forced to match the recorded vote

Gender Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
men 41% 50% 50% 0.00%
women 59% 63% 37% 26.00%
Total 57.67% 42.33% 15.34%
Age Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
18-29 18% 35% 65% -30%
30-44 24% 53% 47% 6%
45-64 39% 63% 37% 26%
65+ 19% 73% 27% 46%
Total 57.46% 42.54% 14.92%
Race Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
white 59% 50% 50% 0%
black 22% 75% 25% 50%
latino 14% 64% 36% 28%
asian 2% n/a n/a
other 3% n/a n/a
Total 54.96% 45.04% 9.92%
Party id Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
democrats 83% 62% 38% 24%
republicans 3% n/a n/a
independents 14% 28% 72% -44%
Total 55.38% 44.62% 10.76%
Ideology Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
very liberal 29% 44% 56% -12%
somewhat liberal 37% 59% 41% 18%
moderate 29% 67% 33% 34%
conservative 5% n/a n/a
Total 54.02% 45.98% 8.04%
When decided Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
last week 23% 57% 43% 14%
earlier 76% 58% 42% 16%
Total 57.19% 42.81% 14.38%
Area Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
urban 64% 62% 38% 24%
suburban 31% 51% 49% 2%
rural 6% n/a n/a
Total 55.49% 44.51% 10.98%
Region Mix clinton sanders Margin
new york city 52% 63% 37% 36%
long island 9% 58% 42% 16%
hudson valley 16% 56% 44% 12%
urban upstate 14% 50% 50% 0%
rural upstate 9% 42% 58% -16%
Total 57.72% 42.28% 15.44%
 
59 Comments

Posted by on April 20, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

Richard Charnin
April 18, 2016

You can listen to the pundits who told you that Hillary is leading by 17%, implying that it is all over and it’s time to just anoint Hillary, so why even bother to vote? Or you can actually go out and vote.

Now these so-called  election forecasters (who never mention the fraud factor) are going to try and project the vote to within 1% – with Hillary winning of course. I’m not going to tell you what the final vote will be. I’m not that smart.

But I will say this: Win or lose, Bernie will do much better than reported in the media.

So do the forecast. Below is a matrix table which shows approximately how Bernie will do if he gets 45-65% of the white vote and 45-65% of non-whites. That’s 25 scenarios. It’s called a sensitivity analysis.  Bernie’s total vote share is a function of his share of whites and non-whites.

Fully expect that one of the 25 scenarios will closely match Bernie’s final recorded vote.

Know this: if the CNN exit poll indicates that Bernie had 45% of whites and 45% of non-whites (or 45% overall) do not believe it. In fact, expect that Bernie will do 5-8% better than the recorded vote. Remember the exit poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote.

So here goes.  Pick out the cell which contains Bernie’s share that you believe will be closest to the final recorded vote. In other words predict Bernie’s recorded share of the white vote and non-white vote, knowing that it will surely understate his True Vote.

For instance, cell C2 = 56.2%

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Race………….. NYReg Sanders Clinton
White…………… 76.6% 55.0% 45.0%
Non-white……… 23.4% 60.0% 40.0%
TOTAL…………….100% 56.2% 43.8%

………………………..Sanders % White
……………………..45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0%
………………………A……..B……..C……..D…….E
%Non-White………………. Sanders TOTAL
1. 65.0%………….. 49.7% 53.5% 57.3% 61.2% 65.0%
2. 60.0%………….. 48.5% 52.3% 56.2% 60.0% 63.8%
3. 55.0%………….. 47.3% 51.2% 55.0% 58.8% 62.7%
4. 50.0%………….. 46.2% 50.0% 53.8% 57.7% 61.5%
5. 45.0%………….. 45.0% 48.8% 52.7% 56.5% 60.3%

 
13 Comments

Posted by on April 18, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin
4/13/2016

Bernie Sanders is leading 50.4-49.6% based on the unweighted average of all 34 caucuses and primaries. Let’s accept the reasonable premise that the primaries have been fraudulent and Sanders won in MO, MA, AZ, OH,IL, IA, and NV.  Electoral votes are directly proportional to state voting population.  Clinton has won 11 RED states with 160 EV. Sanders won the other 23 states with 188 EV

Based on late exit polls (which had yet to be adjusted to match the recorded vote), Sanders is leading by an unweighted 52.4-47.0%.  The lead must be even greater since votes were stolen from Bernie in the RED states. Proof? Check the average 8.7% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded votes in the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 17 of N= 18 primaries. The probability P=0.000072 or 1 in 13,797. The spreadsheet function is P= 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true). There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was not due to chance and must have been the result of election fraud.

Wyoming

Bernie was a 56-44% winner in the caucus, yet Hillary won 11 of 18 delegates!  In 12 counties, 54% of Clinton’s votes were surrogates (mail-in), representing 74% of the delegates. Just 27% of Sander’s votes were surrogates. Contrast this to  the Nebraska caucus, where 20% of Clinton’s votes were mail-in.

From CNN: “A Clinton campaign aide said their ‘secret sauce’ in Wyoming was the state’s onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms.”  But there is no evidence of such a rule.  The aide was not named.

Wisconsin

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely  did even better.  At 4pm, the exit poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of white vote.  Whites comprise 88% of  WI voters. Assuming Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party).

The final adjusted exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicates that whites comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks  comprised 10% – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not  plausible. A pre-election poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP)  indicated that Sanders was  winning black voters by 51-40%.

The exit poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). According to the pollsters,  the vote shares are NA. How is that? Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Without this information, we cannot calculate the total recorded vote shares. The abbreviated totals have Sanders winning by 52.1-40.1%. The 12% margin is close to the official recorded margin.

Arizona

Arizona is the latest poster child of election fraud,  along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Sanders won Utah (a bordering state) and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?

The  National Exit Pool (NEP) of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ.  It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious. But  the networks called it for Hillary  with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll? Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won  the county by 54-43%- an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes  much further than this one poll.

Of the 15 Arizona counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson)  is second with 16%. In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was  54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. In 2016, 13  counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008. The 4.1% decline (17,000 votes) in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter  turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.8% to 56.0%.

Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% turnout. It is  a powerful indicator of  voter suppression. The  probability of the 12.9% difference  (160,000 votes) between Maricopa’s projected 62.1% voter turnout and the actual 50.2% turnout  is approximately  1 in  90 trillion.

The  probability of the  5.8% difference in voter turnout  between 14 AZ counties (56.0%) and Maricopa (50.2%) is approximately 1 in 13,000).

Super Tuesday

In the five unadjusted exit polls there were 7,220 respondents. Clinton led by 53.2-44.7%. In the final adjusted polls , there were 7979 respondents (759 additional). She led the final adjusted polls (which were matched to the recorded vote) by 55.6-42.4%. Clinton had 586 (77.2%) of the FINAL 759 respondents, or 21.9% above her unadjusted share. Sanders had 20% (24.7% below his unadjusted share).

Inline image

Michigan

Sanders did much better than his recorded vote in the Michigan primary.  Sanders had 590,386  votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%).   Sanders won in 73 of 83  MI counties with 56% of the vote. He won the preliminary exit poll by 52.1-45.9%, a 97% win probability. Clinton won urban counties Wayne and Oakland  with approximately 55% of the vote.

Once again, we have multiple confirmation indicating fraud: Cumulative vote shares, preliminary exit poll, absentee vote anomalies and other anecdotal information.

Cumulative Vote Shares  are a likely indicator of fraud. The lines should be nearly parallel, but invariably, vote shares rise for establishment candidates in urban Democratic counties. It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor. 

In the CVS analysis, Sanders had approximately 56% at the 600,000 mark. Notice the abrupt change to straight lines at the 600,000 vote mark. They represent the largest counties (Wayne and Oakland) which used ES&S optical scanners exclusively. 

Sanders had   54% of approximately 500,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia  voting machines. Clinton had  75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes and  51.2% of approximately 700,000 votes cast on ES&S Mod 100 machines. The percentages are highly suspect.

Sanders’ county vote shares  were negatively correlated to machine types. The ES&S Model 100 correlation was  -0.68. The bigger the county the lower Sanders’ vote share. Wayne and Oakland counties used ES&S Model 100 optical scanners. Macomb used both ES&S and Premier/Diebold/Dominion AccuVote optical scanners.

 Massachusetts

Late changes to the exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen.  Sanders  led the Unadjusted Exit Poll Gender crosstab  (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7% a 97% win probability.. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm.

But as always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%,  a near-exact match to the  RECORDED vote margin.  But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE.  The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain  114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?

Clinton won  by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Sanders won 68  hand-counted precincts by 58-41% (32,360 votes, 2.7% of votes cast).  He won 250 of  351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110. 

There is a 97%  probability  that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error. The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect  (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability.

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 

 
9 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , ,

A Preliminary Probability Analysis of the Wisconsin Primary

Richard Charnin
April 6, 2016

This is a preliminary analysis of the   Wisconsin Democratic primary exit poll and recorded vote discrepancies.

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely  did even better.

The early poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of the white vote. Whites comprise 88% of the Wisconsin electorate. Assuming  Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party).

I downloaded  the final CNN Exit Poll  exit poll and included selected crosstabs  into this spreadsheet. The total vote shares were calculated for each category. All matched the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure to match the recorded vote in all crosstabs (categories). All except the RACE category; the data is incomplete – and highly suspect.

The RACE cross tab indicates that white voters comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks  comprised 10% of the vote – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not  plausible. A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll  indicated that Sanders was  winning black voters by 51-40%.

The exit poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). According to the pollsters,  the vote shares are NA. How is that? Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Without this information, we cannot calculate the total recorded vote shares. The abbreviated totals have Sanders winning by 52.1-40.1%. The 12% margin is close to the official recorded margin.

The CNN Final Exit Poll  (1774 respondents) was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting  the voter turnout percentages and/or the vote shares in every category. The only way the cross tabs would legitimately represent the true vote is if there was ZERO election fraud. Who still believes that in Wisconsin, the recorded vote represents the true vote? 

Gender Pct Clinton Sanders Other
Men 43.0% 35.0% 64.0% 1.0%
Women 57.0% 49.0% 50.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 43.0% 56.0% 1.0%
Age Pct Clinton Sanders Other
18-29 19.0% 18.0% 82.0% 0.0%
30-44 24.0% 33.0% 66.0% 1.0%
45-64 39.0% 54.0% 46.0% 0.0%
65+ 18.0% 62.0% 37.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 43.6% 56.0% 0.4%

Why are vote shares not available for 124 (7%) minority respondents? Why the 20% decline in Sanders 51% pre-election poll share of blacks? Why the 9% decline in Sanders 68% preliminary exit poll share of whites? The probabilities of the discrepancies are way beyond the 3% margin of error. Was it because the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote?

Race Pct Clinton Sanders Other
White 83.0% 40.0% 59.0% 1.0%
Black 10.0% 69.0% 31.0% 0.0%
Latino 3.0% na na na
Asian 2.0% na na na
Other 2.0% na na na
Total 100.0% 40.1% 52.1% 0.8%

The probability of the 9% decline from Sanders 68% exit poll share  to the final 59% is 2.05E-09 or 1 in 487 million.  

Given  a) the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ 56.7% recorded 2-party vote share and his estimated 64.6% exit poll share, and b) assuming a 3.0% exit poll margin of error, there is a 95% probability  that his True share was in the range 62-68%.

The probability is 97.5%  that he had at least 62%.

The probability of the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ estimated 64.6% poll and 56.9% vote share is P= 1.14E-07 or 1 in 8.7 million.

The sensitivity analysis shows Sanders vote share for increments   around his base case shares of whites and non-whites.

Sanders had 61.4% in the worst case scenario, assuming he had 65% of whites and 35% of non-whites. He had 67.9% in the best case scenario, assuming he had 71% of whites and 45% of non-whites.

Given  a) the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ 56.7% recorded 2-party vote share and his estimated 64.6% exit poll share, and b) assuming a 3.0% exit poll margin of error, there is a 95% probability  that his True share was in the range 62-68%.

The probability is 97.5%  that he had at least 62%.

The probability of the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ estimated 64.6% poll and 56.9% vote share is P= 1.14E-07 or 1 in 8.7 million.

Base Case

Race Pct Sanders Clinton
White 88.0% 68.0% 32.0%
Non-white 12.0% 40.0% 60.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 64.6% 35.4%

The sensitivity analysis matrix shows Sanders vote shares for various increments  around his base case shares of white (68%) and non-white voters (40%). He had 64.6% in the base case.

Bernie had 55.6% in the worst case (recorded vote) scenario (59% of whites and 31% of non-whites). He had 68.8% in the best case  (72% of whites and 45% of non-whites). 

 

% White 59.0% 64.0% 68.0% 72.0%
 %Non-white Sanders %
45.0% 57.3% 61.7% 65.2% 68.8%
40.0% 56.7% 61.1% 64.6% 68.2%
35.0% 56.1% 60.5% 64.0% 67.6%
31.0% 55.6% 60.0% 63.6% 67.1%

 

 
15 Comments

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

 

Tags: , ,

2016 Arizona Primary: Voter Suppression in Maricopa county

Richard Charnin and John Brakey
April 4, 2016

2016 Arizona Primary: Voter Suppression in Maricopa county

This post compares Maricopa voter turnout to the other 14  AZ counties as well as to the 2008 presidential primary. The spreadsheet is from John Brakey, the foremost forensic election fraud expert in AZ. The data is from  the Arizona Secretary of State:  http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/PPE/Results/PPE2016Results.htm#

Of the 15 AZ counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson)  is second with 16%.

In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was  54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. In 2016, 13  counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008.

The 4.1% decline  in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter  turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.83% to 56.03%. 

Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% (54.3%+8.8%) turnout. Calculations indicate that 160,000 votes were suppressed. It is  a powerful indicator of  voter suppression. The  probability of the 12.9% difference between Maricopa’s projected 63.1% voter turnout and  the actual 50.2% turnout  is approximately 9.1E-13 or 1 in 90 trillion.

The  probability of the 5.81% difference in voter turnout  between 14 AZ counties (56.03%) and Maricopa (50.22%) is approximately  1 in 600,000.

County 2016 Registration Votes 2016 Turnout 2008 Turnout Change
Maricopa 1,238,508 621,976 50.2% 54.3% -4.1%
Pima 327,699 202,934 61.9% 52.4% 9.5%
Yavapai 82,057 56,454 68.8% 51.6% 17.2%
Pinal 98,112 52,221 53.2% 46.1% 7.1%
Mohave 65,409 33,552 51.3% 43.2% 8.1%
Cochise 45,952 24,310 52.9% 43.5% 9.4%
Coconino 45,385 26,278 57.9% 49.3% 8.6%
Yuma 43,937 20,105 45.8% 39.3% 6.4%
Navajo 42,254 18,066 42.8% 37.3% 5.5%
Gila 20,503 11,698 57.1% 50.9% 6.1%
Apache 34,635 11,360 32.8% 28.1% 4.7%
Santa Cruz 15,707 6,098 38.8% 33.8% 5.0%
Graham 13,073 5,966 45.6% 38.3% 7.4%
La Paz 5,592 2,004 35.8% 42.3% -6.5%
Greenlee 3,131 1,557 49.7% 44.1% 5.6%
Total 2,081,954 1,094,579 52.57% 51.28% 1.39%
2016 Voter Turnout  Actual Expected
Maricopa 1,238,508 1,238,508
Turnout % 50.22% 63.1%
Voter turnout 621,976 781,499
Voter Suppression 159,523

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 4, 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 1,576 other followers