Tag Archives: election fraud

KY 2015 Governor: Cumulative Vote shares indicate Likely Fraud

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

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 he 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 48.3-47.7%.

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 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).

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.

Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, has done a similar analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies.

A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University, Precinct
 Matters: ­
 Elections, reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries.
2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

My  interview with Thom Hartmann on the KY election

Compare the 2014 Senate race to the 2015 Governor contest.


Posted by on November 4, 2015 in 2014 Elections


Tags: , , , , , , ,

MA 2014 Governor Election: Cumulative Vote share Anomalies

MA 2014 Governor Election: Cumulative Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Sept.25, 2015

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

A Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis of the 2014 Massachusetts Governor election showed greater discrepancies than the close races in WI, FL, MD and IL. CVS analysis indicated that election fraud was likely in each election. All showed the same counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares. Democrats are strong in large, vote-rich urban areas and Republicans dominate in small, rural areas.

The beauty of CVS analysis is that it is easy to understand. Given the basic premise that Democrats usually do much better than Republicans in heavily populated counties, then we would not expect Republicans to gain share as precinct votes are sorted and summed from the smallest to the largest precincts. This is a red flag and indicates that the election was likely fraudulent.

Note that cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the basis for calculating the change to the final vote. At 25% the Democrats typically lead by a solid margin, especially in heavily populated counties. But it’s all downhill from there.

In MA, a strong Democratic state, Baker(R) defeated Coakley(D) by 49.3-47.4%, a 40,000 vote margin out of two million cast. Recall that Coakley also lost a disputed election in 2010. Jonathan Simon wrote: “In the 70 jurisdictions where ballots were hand-counted, Coakley won. In fact, statewide, there was an 8% disparity between hand count to computer count.”

In 2014 Coakley lost by 0.94% in the 5 largest townships. She won the 5 smallest townships by 10.9%.

At the 25% CVS mark, Coakley led by 56.0-40.6%, a 326,000 vote margin. She led in 12 of the 14 townships. But 183,000 votes shifted to Baker, who ended up winning 7 townships. In Middlesex (518,000 votes) Coakley’s share dropped 40,000 votes (7.8%). In Hamden (129,000 votes) her share declined a whopping 17.5% (23,000 votes).

Only three townships (Barnstable, Berkshire and Franklin) did not show an increasing vote share trend for Baker. Coakley dropped 8.2% in the 5 largest townships, but just 2.3% in the five smallest – further confirmation that Democratic votes are stolen in the largest counties. Smaller counties are ignored because a) they have relatively few Democrats and/or b) secure vote counting/auditing systems.

This spreadsheet contains precinct level votes for the 14 MA townships sorted by precinct size, corresponding graphs and summary table:

Election analysts and activists have presented overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence of systematic election fraud:
a) massive unadjusted exit poll discrepancies (red-shift to the GOP),
b) impossible number of returning voters from the previous election,
c) unadjusted exit poll data changed and forced to match the recorded vote,
d) True Vote Model confirms unadjusted exit polls,
e) election officials refusal to prove vote counts are accurate,
f) proprietary voting machines steal votes using malicious, secret code,
g) refusal of the mainstream media (who fund the pollsters) to inform or investigate,
h) failure of the Democratic party to investigate proves its complicity.

Election Fraud is the THIRD RAIL of American politics.

Election officials won’t reveal the ballots or provide voting machine code. Exit pollsters make impossible adjustments to the actual data in order to conform to the bogus recorded vote. Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later when it’s too late to do anything about it.

In 2012 the National Election Pool of six media giants did not conduct presidential exit polls 19 states. Their stated reason (to save money) was an extreme insult to the collective intelligence of serious analysts. The true reason is that the NEP does not want election analysts to have access to the full set of exit poll data – otherwise they would be able to calculate the unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate vote share and compare it to the unadjusted National Exit Poll. The data would show that the Democratic True Vote is 4-5% higher (“the red-shift”) than the recorded vote.

Given all this, the fact that in Kansas no one is allowed to view the voting machine records should not come as a surprise.

View the CVS county graphs:

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 25, 2015 in 2014 Elections


Tags: , , , ,

Election Forensics: 2014 WI, FL, IL, MD Governor

Election Forensics: 2014 WI, FL, IL, MD Governor

Richard Charnin
Aug.13, 2015
Updated: Aug.17, 2015
Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy … Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Compendium of Links to all of my posts

Cumulative Vote Share Spreadsheet Reference

An analysis of Exit Polls, True Votes and Cumulative Vote Shares indicates that the 2014 Governor elections in Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois and Maryland were likely stolen.

Although most voters believe that politicians are corrupt, many still cling to the myth that votes are accurately and fairly counted – and that election fraud is a conspiracy theory.

Many voters are still unaware that the unadjusted, pristine exit polls are routinely adjusted to match the recorded vote. The implicit assumption is that the recorded vote represents true voter intent.
Mathematical analysis of discrepancies between unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls versus recorded votes from 1988-2008 confirms systemic fraud to a 100% probability. For a suspicious election, mathematical analysis is a useful way to determine the likelihood of fraud.

Historical Analysis of Election Fraud

Pre-election polls
To set the context,Democrats do much better in Registered Voter (RV) polls than in the Likely Voter (LV) subsets. The reason is simple: voters considered unlikely to vote (mostly newly registered Democrats) are eliminated from the full RV sample. The RV polls are often close to the unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote. On the othr hand, final LV polls published on Election eve are excellent predictors of the bogus final recorded vote.

2012 Presidential Election- Final Forecast and True Vote

In each of the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, in order for the pollsters to force the unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote, they needed to assume an impossible number of returning Republican voters. In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats led the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led by 52-42% in the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the True Vote Model. The 8% margin discrepancy was far beyond the margin of error. But the discrepancy was not due to poor polling design, or exit poll respondents lying about their past vote, their current vote. They would have to lie in response to every one of dozens of questions.

Naysayers and media pundits want voters to believe that the exit polls are always wrong and must be “corrected” to conform to the recorded vote. But they never consider that the unadjusted exit polls are accurate and reflect true voter intent. To the pundits, election fraud is not a factor and the published exit polls accurately reflect voter intent.

But fraud is not limited to presidential elections. House, senate, governor and local elections have also been compromised by maliciously coded voting machines and voter disenfranchisement.

Who will argue with these points?
1- Unadjusted exit polls are hidden from the public.
2- Unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote.
3- Voting machine software is proprietary, not open to public viewing
4- Auditing and hand-counting of votes are denied.

Exit polls
Since we cannot view unadjusted exit polls until years later (if at all), we are left with final, adjusted polls. The question “How did you vote in the last election” is no longer asked by the pollsters. An exhaustive analysis of 1988-2008 presidential election unadjusted state and national exit polls shows why the question is no longer asked: it gives an analyst the ability to check the number of returning voters from the prior election. The number provided in the adjusted polls has often proved to be impossible. There were more returning Bush voters in 1992, 2004 and 2008 than were alive. The 2004 election is a case in point. Simple arithmetic proves that it was stolen. It is a fact that…
1- Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000.
2- The 2004 National Exit Poll indicates that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. This is obviously impossible; the pollsters had to adjust the number of returning voters to match the 2004 recorded vote.
3- Of the 50.5 million Bush 2000 voters, approximately 2 million died before the 2004 election.
4- Approximately one million Bush 2000 voters did not return in 2004.
Therefore, an estimated 47.5 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. Simple arithmetic shows there had to be at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush 2004 voters.

We are forced to analyze adjusted exit polls to look for anomalies. Party-ID is a demographic we can check in lieu of the past vote question. Of course, there is no way to check the Party-ID mix mathematically as we can with the past vote. But it is still useful to see if the percentage mix and corresponding vote shares are plausible based on voter registration and prior elections.

View the Party-ID sensitivity analysis for FL, IL, WI

Florida 2014
True Vote Model

2014 True Vote
2-party Estimated
2010 True Turnout Votes Mix Crist Scott
Sink 52.2% 93.0% 2.463 43.5% 92.5% 7.5%
Scott 47.8% 93.0% 2.255 39.9% 6.9% 93.1%
....................... True 52.0% 48.0%
................... Recorded 49.4% 50.6%

Sensitivity Analysis
........Crist Share of Sink
Crist%..89.5% 92.5% 95.5%
Scott...Crist Total Share
9.9%....51.9% 53.2% 54.5%
6.9%....50.7% 52.0% 53.3%
3.9%....49.5% 50.8% 52.1%
........Crist Margin (000)
9.9%...211.69 359.47 507.25
6.9%....76.37 224.15 371.93
3.9%.. -58.96 88.824 236.61

In 2010, Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (280,000 votes).There were 3150 respondents (2% margin of error). Of course, the poll was adjusted to match Scott’s 49.6-48.4% recorded 64,000 vote margin. It indicated that 47% of the voters were returning Obama voters and 47% McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida easily. Scott needed 67% of the other 6% who voted (new voters and others who voted for third parties in 2008). These adjustments are highly implausible.

To match the recorded vote, the pollsters assumed a 36D-36R-28I split with Scott winning Independents by 52-44%. In matching the unadjusted exit poll, Sink required a 38D-34R-28I split while winning Independents by 47-43%.

The 2014 election was virtually a carbon copy of 2010. Scott won by 48.2-47.1% (66,000 votes). Crist had 52% of the 2-party True Vote if Sink had the 52.2% share in the unadjusted 2010 exit poll. There were 500,000 more voters than in 2010. Historically, heavy voter turnout is good for the Democrats.

So how did Crist lose by 1%?

Crist did not lose. To match the recorded vote, the pollsters assumed an implausible Party-ID split: 31D- 35R- 34I. Assuming the true mix was 35D- 35R- 30I, Crist won by 181,000 votes (49.2-46.1%). According to the adjusted exit poll (assumed biased for Scott), Crist had 91% of Democrats; Scott had just 88% of Republicans. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. Crist shares were most likely higher.

Florida Exit Poll
(adjusted to match the recorded vote)……….True Vote
........Pct Crist Scott Other... Pct Crist Scott Other
Dem.....31% 91.0% 6.00% 3.00%... 35.0% 92.0% 5.00% 3.00%
Rep.....35% 10.0% 88.0% 2.00%... 35.0% 10.0% 88.0% 2.00%
Other...33% 46.0% 44.0% 8.00%... 30.0% 46.0% 44.0% 10.0%
Total...99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.30%... 100.% 49.5% 45.8% 4.80%

Sensitivity Analysis
................Crist Share of Dem
Dem Rep.....91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
................Crist Total share
32% 38%.....46.7% 47.0% 47.4%
35% 35%.....49.2% 49.5% 49.9%
38% 32%.....51.6% 52.0% 52.3%
................Crist Margin
32% 38%.....-1.8% -1.2% -0.5%
35% 35%......3.1% 3.8% 4.4%
38% 32%......7.9% 8.7% 9.4%

Illinois 2014
True Vote Model
Quinn won the True Vote assuming Obama’s 57% share and an equal 80% turnout of returning Obama and Romney voters.
2012 Votes Turnout.Vote. Pct.. Quinn. Rauner Other
Obama...57.0% 1,686 1,349 38.5% 87.0% 12.0% 1%
Romney..42.0% 1,243 994.. 28.4% 7.00% 93.0% 0%
Other....1.00% 00030 24....0.7% 50.0% 49.0% 1%
DNV (new).......... 1,133. 32.4% 48.0% 48.0% 4%
Total...3,019 2,959 3,500..True 1,799 1,642 59
................................51.4% 46.9% 1.7%
.......................Recorded 47.0% 51.9% 0.9%
...............................1,645 1,817 32
True Vote sensitivity analysis
Assumption: Quinn wins 48% of DNV/New voters

Quinn Quinn share of returning Obama voters
Share of 85.0% 87.0% 89.0%
Romney Quinn Vote Share
9%......51.2% 52.0% 52.7%
8%......50.9% 51.7% 52.5%
7%......50.6% 51.4% 52.2%
6%......50.3% 51.1% 51.9%
5%......50.1% 50.8% 51.6%
........Quinn Margin (000)
9%......143.0 196.9 250.9
8%......123.1 177.0 231.0
7%......103.2 157.2 211.1
6%.......83.3 137.3 191.2
5%.,.....63.4 117.4 171.4

Party-ID heavily favored the Democrats: 43D- 30R- 27I. Quinn had just 85% of Democrats and 29% of Independents. Assuming Quinn had 87% and 44%, respectively, he would have been a 50.8-45.6% winner.

Illinois Exit Poll
(adjusted to match recorded vote)……….True Vote
.........Pct Quinn Rauner Other...Pct Quinn Rauner Other
Dem.....43.0% 85.0% 13.0% 2.00%...43.0% 85.0% 12.0% 1.0%
Rep.....30.0% 5.00% 93.0% 2.00%...30.0% 5.00% 93.0% 2.0%
Other...26.0% 29.0% 64.0% 7.00%...27.0% 40.0% 52.0% 8.0%
Total...99.0% 45.6% 50.1% 3.30%...100.% 49.3% 47.1% 3.6%

Sensitivity Analysis
............Quinn Share of Dem
Dem Rep.........85.0% 86.0% 87.0%
............Quinn Total share
42% 31%.....48.1% 48.5% 48.9%
43% 30%.....48.9% 49.3% 49.7%
44% 29%.....49.7% 50.1% 50.5%
............Quinn Margin
42% 31%....-0.3% 0.6% 1.4%
43% 30%.....1.3% 2.2% 3.0%
44% 29%.....2.9% 3.8% 4.7%

Wisconsin 2014
True Vote Model
Burke won the True Vote, assuming that Barrett won the 2-party vote in 2012 by 53-47% and there was an equal returning voter turnout.
2-party Estimated 2014
2012....True Turnout Votes.... Mix Burke Walker
Barrett 53% 93% 1,207,636.......50.7% 92.7% 7.3%
Walker. 47% 93% 1,070,923.......45.0% 6.5% 93.5%
New..............101,962........4.3% 54.0% 46.0%
...........................True Vote 52.2% 47.8%
............................Recorded 47.1% 52.9%

Burke Share of Barrett
Share of.89.7% 92.7% 95.7%
Walker...Burke Share
9.5%.....52.1% 53.6% 55.1%
6.5%.....50.7% 52.3% 53.8%
3.5%.....49.4% 50.9% 52.4%
.........Burke Margin (000)
9.5%.....98.86 171.3 243.8
6.5%.....34.61 107.1 179.5
3.5%....-29.64 42.81 115.3

Party-ID was 36D- 37R- 27I, as opposed to 39D- 35R- 27I in prior elections. There was heavy voter turnout. Burke had just 43% of Independents. If the mix was actually 38D- 35R- 27I and Burke had 50% of independents, she would have been a 50.2-48.5% winner.

Wisconsin Exit Poll
(adjusted to match recorded vote)……….True Vote
........Pct Burke Walker Other...Pct Burke Walker Other
Dem.....36.0% 93.0% 6.00% 1.00%...38.0% 94.0% 5.00% 1.0%
Rep.....37.0% 4.00% 96.0% 0.00%...35.0% 4.00% 95.0% 1.0%
Other...27.0% 43.0% 54.0% 2.00%...27.0% 49.0% 49.0% 2.0%
Total...100.% 46.6% 52.3% 0.90%...100.% 50.4% 48.4% 1.3%

Sensitivity Analysis
.............Burke Share of Dem
Dem Rep.....93.0% 94.0% 95.0%
.............Burke Total share
36% 37%.....48.2% 48.6% 48.9%
38% 35%.....50.0% 50.4% 50.7%
40% 33%.....51.8% 52.2% 52.6%
.............Burke Margin
36% 37%.....-2.4% -1.6% -0.9%
38% 35%......1.2% 2.0% 2.7%
40% 33%......4.8% 5.6% 6.4%

National Exit Poll (House)
The mix was 35D- 36R- 28I. The Republicans won by 52.0-45.8%. The Democrats had an implausibly low 42% of Independents. If the mix was 36D- 36R- 28I and the Democrats had 50% of the Independents, it would have been a virtual 49% tie.

Cumulative Vote Shares

It is well known fact that Democrats are the majority in highly populated urban locations; Republicans are heavily represented in rural areas. Highly populated precincts are mostly Democratic. But in scores of state elections there has been an increase in cumulative Republican vote shares in larger precincts. This anomaly has been confirmed by PhDs in Kansas and Vanderbilt University.

Consider the following changes from the 25% cumulative vote share to the final recorded share for five Governor elections (all but one competitive) and one senate election.


-All 67 counties: Crist had 47.0% of 5.94 million votes
-12 Top counties: Crist had 52.0% of 3.67 million votes
-55 counties: Crist had 38.9% of 2.27 million votes
Top 12 counties, Crist’s 2-party share declined from 58.5% to 54.4%
Note: precinct data is not available for the 55 counties.


-All 72 counties (2.59 million): Burke’s vote share declined from 49.1% to 46.6% (61.1 million)
-Top 15 counties (1.75 million votes): Burke’s vote share declined from 53.4% to 48.6% (76 mil. votes)
-Other 57 counties (0.84 million): Burke’s vote share increased from 40.8% to 42.6% (14.9 mil.)


-All 102 counties (3.63 million): Quinn’s vote share declined from 52.7% to 46.6% (227.7 million)
-Top 15 counties (2.79 million votes): Quinn’s vote share declined from 58.6% to 51.2% (205.8 million votes)
-87 counties (0.83 million): Quinn’s vote share declined from 33.1% to 30.4% (21.9 million)

There is no exit poll for the MD governor election.
Hogan (R) defeated Brown (D) 53.88-46.12%
Hogan: 710,854, Brown 608,476 votes.
But note this anomaly:
Brown led by 53.9-44.5% in early and late votes (absentee and provisional ballots).
Hogan led election Day voting by 52.9-45.3%.
This also occurred in the 2000-2012 presidential elections. The Democrats always did much better in late voting.

MD Early ElectDay Absentee / Provisional
Brown 53.74% 45.31% 54.51%
......Early+Prov Elect Day Total
Votes 390,340 1,342,837 1,733,177
Brown 53.91% 45.31% 47.20%
Hogan 44.46% 52.94% 51.00%

Hogan’s cumulative 2-party vote share increased from
50.3% at 25% of the total vote to 51.7% at 50% and 53.6% at 100%.
The 3.3% increase is a conservative estimate of the percentage of votes that may have been switched on Election Day given the 7% discrepancy between Election Day shares vs. Early and Late shares
CVS analysis for MD:

2005 Special Ohio Congressional Election
Michael Collins has written about the GOP CVS trend in the 2005 Special Ohio congressional election and the 2012 primaries.

“Richard Charnin, posting as TruthIsAll, first noted the pattern with an analysis of the 2005 special election for a vacated seat for Ohio’s 2nd district, in the House of Representatives. The candidates were the liberal-populist Democrat Paul Hackett versus a right-wing Republican, Jean Schmidt. Charnin noticed that Schmidt’s votes and percentages increased substantially from the smallest to largest precincts in that district. This was a patently absurd pattern of vote accumulation since the liberal Hackett wins were in highly conservative counties that rarely voted for any Democrat.

Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted. A review of precinct level results by Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll on Democratic Underground) reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However, the trend observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in the following graph produced by Democratic Underground poster TruthIsAll, one of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County.

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost the 54 largest.

The following percentages help elaborate the graph above.
Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

“Aside from the vote counting irregularities, other questions remain. Democrats typically do poorly in rural areas. A city-based attorney who supports the right to choose and refuses to support gay bashing legislation, who calls the President a “chicken hawk” and a “son of a bitch”, this candidate, Paul Hackett, carried the four most rural counties in District 2 by an average 59% to 41% margin. Yet this candidate failed in the more populous areas, where he would be expected to do better”.

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?

A question can be raised about the difference between turnout (the votes cast) and the actual size of the precinct, which may or may not be a reflection of votes cast. The following graph, also produced by TruthIsAll, answers the question. As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn’t a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.”

Voter turnout in the larger precincts in Clermont County matches that in the overall 2nd District. Hackett sweeps rural, lower-income areas, while Schmidt takes those wealthier, more populous.

No Correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout

On the face of it, this is odd. The demographic blue-red maps for the 2004 election showed a positive correlation between population density and Democratic (Kerry) votes. Yet in the 2nd District of Ohio in 2005, the exact opposite was true.

Hackett dominated the least populated areas of the district, while Schmidt prevailed in the more populated areas. One observer said that Hackett performed as strongly as he did in rural District 2 because his handgun carry permit was publicized. This ignores the fact that the National Rifle Association endorsed Schmidt; it also ignores the generally prevailing positive attitude towards gun ownership in Southwest Ohio. This argument has one major problem. The NRA has one of the most disciplined political operations in the country. The members are consistent in following endorsements. The endorsement of Schmidt by NRA did not mean “think about voting for Schmidt” it meant “vote Schmidt.” Opposition from the NRA is a major impediment in rural areas.

2012 primaries
Consistent CVS anomalies in the 2012 GOP primaries favored Romney
Michael Collins wrote about it in a two-part article:
“Part I of this series suggested that there may well have been massive vote flipping for candidate Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries (Rigged Elections for Romney (10/22/12) The article and the initial research analysis were received broadly. In addition, highly motivated citizens across the country and a team of high school students contacted the authors for help replicating the research in their states. The researchers, Francois Choquet et al., point out that this can be done with their open source techniques.

The basic argument is straightforward. If you look at precinct level voting data arranged from the smallest to the largest precincts, you will see Romney’s gains increasing substantially as the cumulative vote increases. For example, Ohio and Wisconsin show this clearly as do eleven other states presented here. This extraordinary vote gain from smallest to largest precincts is so out of line, that the probability that this would happen by chance alone is often less than 1 out of a number represented by 1 preceded by 100 zeros and a decimal point, a value beneath the statistical package’s lower limits. As a result, the researchers termed the suspected vote flipping for Romney the “amazing anomaly.” (The Amazing Statistical Anomaly)

The research team’s observation of Romney gains based on precinct size is not unique. The anomaly was raised previously concerning the Republican presidential primaries on a political discussion forum.

Related links:

Urban Legend:Implausible 2004 Bush vote shares in Urban counties.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2015 in 2014 Elections


Tags: , ,

Election Fraud Models: Cumulative Vote Shares and True Vote Analysis

Election Fraud Models: Cumulative Vote Shares and True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
Aug. 2, 2015

CVS and TVM analysis is confirmed by the following studies:
– A statistical study of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

– Wichita State University engineering professor and statistician Beth Clarkson has accused three states — Wisconsin, Ohio, & Kansas — of voting irregularities that indicate a tampering of electronic voting machines. In her recently published journal article, she reviews the statistical anomalies in the three states — including laying out her entire mathematical methodology, inviting others to replicate the study. Clarkson has filed suit trying to gain full access to the ballots for an independent audit of the paper ‘hard copies.’

CVS Analysis
Consider the following changes from the 25% cumulative vote share to the final recorded share for five Governor elections (all but one competitive) and one senate election.

Votes in millions.
.......Recorded Vote......All counties.......Top counties........ Other counties
......Votes Dem% Rep%.. 25% Final Chg.. Votes 25% Final Chg.. Votes 25% Final Chg
Total 21.0 48.5 49.1.. 52.3 48.5 -3.8.. 13.32 57.2 51.9 -5.3.. 7.6 43.4 42.2 -1.2
FL Gov 5.95 47.6 48.6.. 50.6 47.6 -3.0.. 3.47 55.8 52.6 -3.2.. 2.5 42.1 39.4 -2.7
WI Gov 2.38 46.7 52.2.. 49.1 46.7 -2.5.. 1.57 53.5 48.6 -4.9.. 0.81 40.9 42.7 +1.8
IL Gov 3.63 48.4 50.3.. 52.7 46.5 -6.2.. 2.80 58.6 51.2 -7.4.. 0.83 33.1 30.4 -2.7
MD Gov 1.32 47.2 51.0.. 49.7 46.4 -3.3.. 1.10 54.0 50.6 -3.4.. 0.20 27.8 25.2 -2.6
MA Gov 1.04 47.4 49.3.. 56.3 47.4 -8.9.. 0.71 56.2 48.0 -8.2.. 0.34 56.4 45.9 -10.5
WI08Pres2.96 56.3 42.4.. 58.8 56.3 -2.4.. 1.6 64.5 58.6 -5.9.. 1.33 51.7 53.5 1.8

SD Gov 0.28 25.4 70.5.. 25.5 25.0 -0.5.. 0.19 24.7 23.3 -1.4.. 0.08 27.2 28.8 +1.6
KS Sen 0.88 42.3 53.5.. 42.3 42.2 -0.1.. 0.62 48.5 47.1 -1.4.. 0.26 27.7 30.8 +3.1
WI SC 1.50 49.7 50.2.. 52.2 49.7 -2.6.. 0.84 56.2 51.1 -5.0.. 0.66 48.1 47.3 -0.8

Illinois Gov

Florida Gov

South Dakota

Maryland Governor

Kansas Senate

Five Wisconsin Elections:a pattern of county unit ward vote share anomalies

Wisconsin 2014 Gov

Wisconsin 2012 Walker Recall

Wisconsin 2010 Senate

Wisconsin 2011 Supreme Court

Presidential Elections
Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

2000 Florida: Duval County

2004 Ohio: Lucas County

2008 Wisconsin presidential

2012 GOP primaries

1 Comment

Posted by on August 2, 2015 in 2014 Elections


Tags: , , ,

The Media and Scott Walker’s 2014 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
July 25, 2015

This is an informative article and video from We the People Dane County Blog It contains links to Election Fraud articles (including many of my blog posts) and related videos.

Analysis of Scott Walker’s 2012 recall and the November 2014 election results can be shown to be mathematically implausible and cannot represent voter intent. The chance that Scott Walker has, in 2 consecutive election cycles, “won” with vote totals that each violate the Law of Large Numbers is zero.

While Scott Walker bases his 2016 Presidential Campaign on the statement he has won 3 elections in 4 years, in fact, at least 2 of these elections can be demonstrated to have been stolen. The embedded video below explains and highlights the media’s role in election fraud.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 25, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Israel Exit Poll Myths and the stolen 2000/ 2004 U.S. presidential elections

Israel Exit Poll Myths and the stolen 2000/ 2004 U.S. presidential elections

Richard Charnin

March 24, 2015

Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy  Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Count

Once again, the usual blather, myths and excuses from the corporate media  (NY Times) and so-called statistical experts about “faulty” exit polls. “The exit polls were wrong; the vote count was accurate”. We have heard this mantra many times before: in 2000, 2004, Wisconsin, etc.. How is it that whenever the race is “too close to call”, the right-winger wins by a 5% recorded margin?

The corporate media claimed that Gore, Kerry and the Zionist Union were leading or tied in the early exit polls, but a  late surge by Bush, Bush and Likud put them in front at the final exit poll. That is the biggest canard of all. There is never consideration that Election Fraud is a major cause of  discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded vote. The 2000  and 2004 unadjusted exit poll timelines each had Gore and Kerry winning consistently from the early to final timeline.  The discrepancy (“red-shift”) between the poll and the vote is beyond the margin of error.

ALL final unadjusted exit polls are forced to match the bogus recorded vote in every election by rigging the numbers. The premise is always that there was ZERO fraud. The unadjusted, pristine exit polls are very close to the True vote. But the media wants us to believe they are ALWAYS in error and therefore must be “adjusted” to math the fraudulent recorded vote.

The myths are straight out of the GOP election fraud playbook:

  1. The early exit polls were wrong
  2. there was a late surge in the Likud vote
  3. Likud voters did not want to be exit polled

Note that Israeli law does not allow for exit polls to be published prior to the closure of the polls. The actual polling data was expected to be released throughout the night as the ballots are counted.

Voter turnout  appeared to be slightly higher than in the  2013 election, with 65.7 percent of eligible voters having cast their ballots as of 8 p.m. At the same point in the 2013 election, 63.9% of voters had cast ballots as of 8 p.m

The New York Times has maintained the fiction that the exit polls were wrong as far back as they have been conducted- since 1968.

A look at how inaccurate exit polls contributed to the surprised reaction Wednesday morning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had defeated his main rival decisively

JERUSALEM — Israelis woke up to a surprise on Wednesday morning, having gone to bed the night before with the results of their national elections in a near tie.

By dawn, it was clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had decisively defeated his main rival, Isaac Herzog, and assured himself a fourth term.

The cause of the confusion: inaccurate exit polls that showed Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party and Mr. Herzog’s center-left Zionist Union winning about 27 seats each in the 120-seat Knesset.

Instead, with 99 percent of the votes counted, the Likud had won 30 seats to the Zionist Union’s 24.

Mina Tzemach, who together with her colleague, Mano Geva, conducted the poll for the popular Channel 2, appeared again in the studio to explain what had gone wrong. Though Ms. Tzemach’s poll included mock ballots in 60 voting stations serving 25,000 voters around the country, she said an unusually high number of voters refused to participate, particularly in Likud strongholds and in areas with many immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who tend to be wary of sharing their views, a phenomenon that might have skewed the results.

Ms. Tzemach said that anger among Likud supporters and their right-wing allies at the Israeli news media, which has been critical of Mr. Netanyahu, may have played a role.

In addition, the exit polls ended at 8:30 p.m., 90 minutes before the voting stations closed. Mr. Netanyahu was appealing to voters to come out and support him with increasing intensity as the day wore on.

“We saw that the later it got, the stronger the right became,” Ms. Tzemach said.

Camil Fuchs, a professor of statistics who conducted the exit poll for Channel 10 by questioning voters after they had cast their ballot, said he heard the real results when he woke up on Wednesday morning. “I nearly died,” he told the Haaretz newspaper.

Mr. Fuchs said that 30 percent of those asked to take part in his poll had refused. “Perhaps some of the Likud voters refused because of their perception that the media is leftist,” he said.

And the obligatory response from another polling “expert” who never considers ELECTION FRAUD:

The recent Israeli election provides a case study in how political polls—and even exit polls—can get the answer badly wrong, with the result that election winner seemed to flip flop from news outlet to news outlet as the actual count unfolded.

The print edition of The Washington Post’s headline on Wednesday morning had gone to bed declaring, “A Virtual Tie in Israeli Election” while The New York Times’ headline announced, “Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival.”

The Post quickly changed its online version to include an acknowledgment of the poorly informed “virtual tie”, and linking the “Virtual Tie” to the story “Netanyahu Sweeps to Victory”.

Well, here we go again. Just change the above from Likud to Bush.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin.  There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

The True Vote Model had him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV).  In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states.  

Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Other
53,560 46,789 789 3,474 881
50.79% 44.37% 0.75% 3.29% 0.84%
Unadjusted 2000 National Exit Poll
Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Other
6,359 6,065 76 523 85
48.51% 46.27% 0.58% 3.99% 0.65%
The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters – but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004.  Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million.

The Final NEP implied an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters returning in 2004.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on  total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout.  Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV.


Sample Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%


Data Source: Roper Center (UConn)

Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
62,474 58,203 648 969 4,271
51.09% 47.59% 0.53% 0.79% 3.49%

Kerry’s lead was a constant 4% in the exit poll timeline. But the corporate media lied and said that a late surge enabled Bush to win by 2.3%. In fact, the pollsters had to adjust the national exit poll to match the bogus Bush win.

2004 National Exit Poll Timeline

This refutes the myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%).  The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match the recorded voteBush 50.7%; Kerry 48.3%

Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million (Census) votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes.The True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.         

3:59pm: 8349 respondents: Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

 7:33pm: 11027 respondents: Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1%

12:22am: 13047 respondents: Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

2004 Red-shift:

Probabilities of exceeding the margin of error for each 2004 state exit poll (in Column V)

1 Comment

Posted by on March 24, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2014
Updated Sept.30, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and another million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there were at most 47.5 million returning Bush 2000 voters. The National Exit poll indicated that 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. The pollsters had to create at least 5 million phantom Bush voters. Of course, this made no sense. But who questioned it? Who even knew about it?

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million.

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.

In 2010, Walker won by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. in 2012, he won the recall by 171,105 votes with 53.1%. But the True Vote Model (TVM) showed that he needed 23% of Obama returning voters to match the recorded vote. That is extremely implausible – and a red flag. It’s further evidence that Barrett won the election.

2014 Wisconsin Governor
Walker won with a 52.9% share. In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll showed that returning 2012 Barrett voters comprised 35% of 2014 voters compared to 50% for returning Walker voters. The 15% spread is implausible. Compare it to Walker’s 7% recorded 2012 margin and Barrett’s estimated 6% True Vote margin (a whopping 21% discrepancy).Assuming a feasible Barrett 45/Walker 41% returning voter mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%.

In the “How Voted in 2012” crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). How many of the missing 14% voted for Burke?

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:


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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,139 other followers