RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Spreadsheet Links: JFK Witness Probability Database, True Vote Models, Unadjusted Exit Polls

Spreadsheet Links

Richard Charnin
Nov.1, 2013

http://richardcharnin.com/

JFK Calc: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/ https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/jfk-calc-questions-on-the-spreadsheet-analysis/ 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15

1988-2012 State and National True Vote Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/footprints-of-systemic-election-fraud-1988-2004-state-exit-poll-discrepancies/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National True Vote Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/1968-2012-presidential-election-fraud-an-interactive-true-vote-model-proof/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2012 True Vote Model:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=14

2004 Election Monte Carlo Forecast and Exit Poll Simulation: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/monte-carlo-simulation-election-forecasting-and-exit-poll-modeling/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDU5VERHay1mZExaT0lMRVhOXzg2aHc#gid=1

2004 County Presidential True Vote:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/2000-2004-presidential-elections-county-true-vote-model/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDNzZWhMcF9sS3pHRWdUZE8zdEs4aGc&usp=drive_web#gid=23

Walker Recall: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDRwcWRPTUZoZk53YUlxOEVMT0FnX3c#gid=36

Walker Recall: County/Muni True Vote:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/the-walker-recall-municipal-database-a-true-vote-model/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdEd0NFV5QV9DclZFTDJ3aHpqRVh4LWc&usp=drive_web#gid=1

Walker Recall Cumulative Vote Shares: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/walker-recall-county-cumulative-vote-trend-by-ward-group/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdF95dGdleVBSYkdISmplWVZXdXlQQ0E&usp=drive_web#gid=1

Wisconsin True Vote: Supreme Court, State Senate Recalls, 2010 Senate: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/did-the-gop-steal-the-wisconsin-recall-elections-a-true-vote-analysis/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDVmLVZzZVhsVUhRUTFaanFaZG82cFE#gid=2

2008 WI Presidential Cumulative Vote Shares: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdHRSak5RNHNWUTdWYjNLYlFNUzlxLXc#gid=1

Latin American Leader Cancer: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGFXXzNqT1NYdjNVMWpBc0dDaEN0R0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 1, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have
a) won 30% of returning Gore voters, b) won 90% of returning Bush voters, c) stolen the election.

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Assuming it was his True Vote, how many True Electoral Votes did he have?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 11 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1 , b) 2, c) 3 of the 11 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. The fact that it is standard operating procedure is
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). But he won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll cross tab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final approval rating was 48%. The National Exit Poll had 53%. The change was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free (true) vote. It utilizes exit poll shares and calculates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c
2c
3c
4c
5c
6a
7c
8c
9c
10c
11c
12a
13c
14c
15a
16c
17c
18c
19c
20c
21c
22c
23g
24c
25e

 

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

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: March 22, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

I posted the following analysis on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His response was typical disinformation. He claimed that I am afraid to have the analysis peer-reviewed. My work has been open in full to everyone with Internet access for years. No one has ever come forth to refute the election fraud or JFK analysis. Since McAdams is apparently incapable of doing a peer-review himself, he should not have belittled the analysis, but rather asked one of the math or political science professors at Marquette University to do it. He is afraid to. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The JFK witness deaths are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls for six elections from 1988-2008. There are numerous data anomalies in the accumulated evidence.

Intuitively, we feel that there must be an underlying explanation. The first step is to record the data in a spreadsheet. We calculate what we would expect the data to reveal, assuming the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. After placing the data in spreadsheet tables, we can proceed to perform a mathematical analysis to see if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we first need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, given the number of material witnesses for 1964-78.

The data parameters are limited in scope.
- JFK: witness universe, unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate
- Election Fraud: number of elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities of these discrepancies:
- JFK: number of unnatural deaths vs. expected based on mortality statistics.
- Election Fraud: number of exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected.

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
We need to calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote to see how many exceeded the calculated margin of error (MoE).

Of the 274 state exit polls in the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (MoE), with 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 polls were expected to exceed the MoE. The MoE is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

The probability that 131 of 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE (including a 30% cluster factor) in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO.
But what if the cluster factor was higher than 30%? An increase in the factor would increase the adjusted MoE and therefore the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

We run the probability calculations for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is a 30% cluster and 3.23% average MoE. The margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 elections – a E-83 probability. The probability of exceeding the MoE is 1 in 10,000, even assuming an impossible, inflated 200% cluster factor, 7.45% MoE).

Cluster MoE Polls Prob
- Zero : 2.48% 172 E-123
- 30% : 3.23% 135 E-83
- 100% : 4.97% 81 E-35
- 200% : 7.45% 25 E-04 (1 in 10,000)

The MoE would normally be exceeded in approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls if the elections were fair. The cluster factor scenarios indicate that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of this red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

JFK Assassination Witnesses

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy.

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 65 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (20 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 79 officially ruled unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 17 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability is E-63 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000245). It is E-27 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818). Many of the suicides and accidents were actually homicides. The reason: the number of official deaths far exceeded the statistical expectation.

The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios.

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 84 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 100 trillion.

Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 80 Homicides for N witnesses (1964-78)
N….Probability

1400 1.68E-100
2000 1.94E-88

3000 6.70E-75
3500 8.07E-70
4000 1.87E-65
4500 1.23E-61
5000 2.99E-58

5500 3.25E-55
6000 1.82E-52
6500 5.85E-50
7000 1.17E-47
7500 1.55E-45

8000 1.44E-43
10000 6.48E-37
15000 1.42E-25
20000 2.52E-18
25000 4.17E-13 (1 in 2,396,168,995,675)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK

 

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

Historical Overview of Election Fraud Analysis

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Nov.4,2013

Historical Overview

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. 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. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the Final National Exit Poll adjustments made to Bush’s approval rating and Party–ID crosstabs.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. But the Final adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that he had a 53% approval rating, but just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

In 2012, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unajusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

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

1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof

1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model Proof

http://richardcharnin.com/

Richard Charnin
Jan. 22,2013

The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) has been updated to include the 2012 election. Anyone can run the model and calculate the True Vote for every presidential election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These deceptively simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight.

In the 1968-2012 elections, the Republicans led the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%. The Democrats led the True Vote by 49.6-45.1%, a 7.4% margin discrepancy.

The calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the Final National Exit Poll which is always adjusted to match the official recorded vote. It is a mathematical matrix of deceit. Consider the impossible turnout of previous election Republican voters required to match the recorded vote in 1972 (113%), 1988 (103%), 1992 (119%), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). This recurring anomaly is a major smoking gun of massive election fraud.

Methods 2-5 calculate the vote shares based on feasible returning voter assumptions. There are no arbitrary adjustments. Method 2 assumes returning voters based on the previous election recorded vote; method 3 on total votes cast (includes uncounted votes); method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; method 5 on the previous (calculated) True Vote.

In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically.

Final election vote shares are dependent on just two factors: voter turnout (measured as a percentage of previous living election voters) and voter preference (measured as percentage of new and returning voters).

The TVM uses best estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The vote shares are the adjusted National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote.

It turns out that the Final Exit Poll match to the recorded vote is primarily accomplished by changing the returning voter mix to overweight Republicans.

In 2004, the adjusted National Exit Poll indicated that 43% of voters were returning Bush 2000 voters (implying an impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004) and 37% were returning Gore voters. But just changing the returning voter mix was not sufficient to force a match to the recorded vote; the Bush shares of returning and new voters had to be inflated as well. Kerry won the unadjusted NEP (13660 respondents) by 51.0-47.5%.

In 2008, the adjusted NEP indicated that 46% of voters were returning Bush voters (an impossible 103% turnout) and 37% returning Kerry voters. Obama won the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents) by 61.0-37.5%.

Sensitivity Analysis

The final NEP shares of new and returning voters are best estimates based on total votes cast in the prior and current elections and a 1.25% annual mortality rate. But we need to gauge the effect of incremental changes in the vote shares on the bottom line Total Vote. The TVM does this automatically by calculating a True Vote Matrix of Plausibility (25 scenarios of alternative vote shares and corresponding vote margins).

The base case turnout percentage of prior election voters is assumed to be equal for the Democrat and Republican. The turnout sensitivity analysis table displays vote shares for 25 combinations of returning Democratic and Republican turnout rates using the base case vote shares.

The National Election Pool consists of six media giants and funds the exit polls. In 2012 the NEP decided to poll in just 31 states, claiming that it would save them money in these “tough” times. It would have cost perhaps $5 million to poll the other 19 states. Split it six ways and it’s less than the salary of a media pundit.

The published 2012 National Exit Poll does not include the “Voted in 2008” crosstab. It would have been helpful, but we don’t really need it. We calculated the vote shares required to match the recorded vote by trial and error, given the 2008 recorded vote as a basis. After all, that’s what they always do anyway.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 24, 2013 in True Vote Models, Uncategorized

 

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

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Election Fraud 2012: The Third-party Vote

Richard Charnin
Jan. 14, 2013

In previous posts, we have noted the dramatic 7% difference between Obama’s Election Day and late recorded vote share in both 2008 and 2012. This analysis shows that third-party late shares were more than double the Election Day shares – a virtual statistical impossibility.

In 2008, there were 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 52.34-46.31% (1.35% to third-parties). There were 10.16 million late votes; Obama led by 59.16-37.48% (3.36% to third-parties).

In 2012, there were 117.46 million votes recorded on Election Day; Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (1.59% to third-parties). There were 11.68 million late votes; Obama led by 57.99-38.29% (3.72% to third-parties).

Are late votes representative of the electorate as a whole? One check is to weight (multiply) the late state vote shares by the total state vote.

2008 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 57.4- McCain 38.6- Other 4.0%
The third-party late share is within 0.6% of the 3.36% recorded late share.
Obama had 58.0% in the state exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model (within 0.6% of his weighted late share).

2012 Weighted Late Vote Shares:
Obama 54.0- Romney 41.8- Other 4.2%
The third-party late share is within 0.5% of the 3.7% recorded late share.
Obama had 56.1% in the 2-party True Vote Model (within 0.3% of his weighted 2-party late share). Only 31 states were exit polled in 2012. Unadjusted polling data is unavailable.

So what do the third-party numbers indicate? Consider that:
- Obama’s 2008 late vote shares closely match the 2008 state exit polls (within 1%).
- Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares closely match the True Vote Models (within 1%).

Third-party 2008 and 2012 late state vote shares
- closely match the late recorded shares (within 0.5%).
- were more than double the Election Day shares.

Therefore, since the Obama and third party weighted late shares were a close match to the late recorded shares, it is likely that the increase in the third party late share over the Election Day share was caused by a combination of a) vote flipping on Election Day from third parties to McCain and Romney, b) higher third party provisional and absentee voting rates, c) discarding of absentee and provisional Obama ballots which increased third-party late vote shares.

If 50% of the difference in third party late vote shares and Election Day shares was due to vote flipping, then approximately one million (1%) of the votes recorded on Election Day were flipped from the third-parties to McCain and Romney.

Election Day and Late Vote shares
(weighted by total state vote)

2008
Obama McCain Other Calculated
52.87% 45.62% 1.51% Total Votes
52.34% 46.31% 1.35% Election Day
52.25% 46.51% 1.24% Election Day Weighted
59.15% 37.47% 3.34% Late Recorded
55.80% 40.90% 3.30% Late Weighted
58.00% 40.30% 1.70% Exit Poll & True Vote Model

2012
Obama Romney Other Calculated
51.03% 47.19% 1.78% Total Votes
50.34% 48.07% 1.59% Election Day
50.68% 47.70% 1.62% Election Day Weighted
57.99% 38.29% 3.72% Late Recorded
54.00% 41.80% 4.20% Late Weighted
55.00% 43.00% 2.00% True Vote Model (exit polls n/a)

Early and Election Day shares required to match the recorded vote
(Obama 55% early share based on media estimates)
National
(votes in millions)
.........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early/Election Day.......117.45 91.14% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59% 2.27%
Late......................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.70%
Total....................129.13 100.0% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84%

..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting..............40.03 31.00% 55.00% 43.41% 1.59% 11.59%
Election Day..............77.42 60.14% 48.00% 50.41% 1.59% -2.41%
Late Votes................11.68 8.86% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72% 19.71%
Calculated Share.........129.13 100.0% 51.06% 47.17% 1.78% 3.89%

Recorded Share........................ 51.03% 47.19% 1.78% 3.84%
Total Votes (mil)..................... 65.90 60.94 2.30 4.96

True Vote............................. 55.00% 43.00% 2.00% 12.00%
2-party .............................. 56.1% 43.9%

Obama Election Day Share
..... 48.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early... Total share
56% 51.37% 53.77% 56.18%
55% 51.06% 53.46% 55.87%
49% 49.20% 51.60% 54.01%
........ Margin
56% 5.82 12.04 18.25
55% 5.02 11.24 17.45
49% 0.22 6.43 12.65

Florida
(votes in thousands)
..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting............4,245 50.00% 52.00% 47.14% 0.86% 4.86%
Election Day............4,063 47.85% 47.60% 51.54% 0.86% -3.94%
Late Votes................182 2.15% 52.70% 37.55% 9.75% 15.15%

Calculated Share........8,490 100.00% 49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87%
Recorded Share........................49.91% 49.04% 1.05% 0.87%
True Share............................50.69% 48.26% 1.05% 2.43%

Ohio
(votes in thousands)
..........................Votes Pct Obama Romney Other Margin
Early voting............1,395 25.00% 57.05% 41.54% 1.41% 15.51%
Election Day............4,132 74.04% 48.40% 50.19% 1.41% -1.79%
Late Votes.................54 0.96% 59.38% 33.59% 7.03% 25.80%

Calculated Share........5,581 100.00% 50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81%
Recorded Share........................50.67% 47.86% 1.47% 2.81%
True Share............................53.97% 44.56% 1.47% 9.42%

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry:
Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms: Regression Generic Poll Trend Model
Projected Democratic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 14, 2013 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Election Fraud 2012: Simple Algebra of Early, Election Day and Late Recorded Votes

Richard Charnin
Jan. 9, 2013
Updated: Nov. 2, 2013

The 2012 True Vote Model determined that Obama won the election by 55-43%, a 15.5 million vote margin. Officially, Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2%, a 5.0 million margin. The following early and late vote analysis will confirm that the TVM estimate is close to the truth.

Calculating Obama’s Election Day vote is an algebra problem. We have Obama’s 51.0% share of the (T)otal recorded vote (129 million). The Total vote is the sum of the (E)arly, Election (D)ay and (L)ate votes. We have the late votes recorded after Election Day. We have a good estimate of the number of early votes (31% of the total) and Obama’s share. Since T = E+D+L, we can solve for Obama’s Election Day Vote: D = T-E-L. It turns out that in order to match Obama’s 51.0% share, he must have had only 48% of the recorded Election Day votes. This is highly implausible.

Obama led by just 50.3-48.0% after the first 117.4 million votes were recorded early and on Election Day. But he had a 58-38% margin in the 11.7 million late votes recorded after Election Day.

Timeline of 2012 recorded votes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29″

The same phenomenon occurred in 2008. Quoting from the Huffington Post: “Obama dominated early voting in 2008, building up such big leads in Colorado, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina that he won each state despite losing the Election Day vote, according to voting data compiled by The Associated Press”.

But the article never questioned why the anomaly occurred in the first place or mentioned the fact that Obama won the 10 million late votes recorded after Election Day by 59-37%. The omissions were typical of the mainstream media which never bothers to do an in-depth data analysis.

Total Vote = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote
TV = EV + ED + LV

TV = 129.13 million (Obama led by 51.0-47.2%)
LV = 11.67 million (Obama led by 58.0-38.3%)
EV = 40.0 million (Obama had an estimated 55%; the Early Vote was approximately 31% of TV)

Therefore, solving for the Election Day recorded vote:
ED = TV – LV – EV = 77.46 million = 129.13 – 11.67 – 40.0

We use simple algebra to solve for Obama’s Election Day recorded share. Since we know his total vote, early and late vote, we calculate his Election Day share (X) from the formula:
Total Vote = 65.90 = .51*TV = .55*EV + X*ED + .58*LV
X= (0.51*TV -.55*EV – .58*LV) / ED
X = (0.51*129.13 – .55*40.0 – .58*11.67) / 77.46
X = (65.90 – 22.0 – 6.77) / 77.46
X = 37.13/77.46
X = 47.9%
Romney won the 77.5 million votes cast on Election Day by 50.4-47.9% (third-parties had 1.7%).

Are we to believe that Romney won by 2.5% on Election Day (votes were cast on optical scanners and touchscreens) while Obama won 40 million Early votes (hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots) by 12% and also won the 11.7 million Late recorded votes (absentee and provisional ballots) by 20%? It is very convincing evidence that votes were stolen from Obama on Election Day by rigging the voting machines.

Sensitivity Analysis
The only assumption is that Obama had 55% of the early vote. We know he had 58% of the late vote and therefore must have had 48% on Election Day. Let’s consider other early vote scenarios.

If Obama had 53% of the early vote, then he needed 49% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. Is the 5% spread between his early and late vote plausible? If he had 51%, he needed 50% on Election Day. Is the 7% spread plausible?

The 2012 True Vote Model contains a comprehensive Early vs. Late Vote sensitivity analysis.
1. Obama and Romney shares of early, Election Day and late votes
2. Vote shares required to match the Calculated Total Vote
3. Obama’s Total Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares

Correlation
The 2008 and 2012 recorded total and late votes are highly correlated:
Recorded Vote: 0.983
Late Vote: 0.813
Late Vote percent of recorded: 0.831

2008-2012 Summary Comparison
Note the uniform 2% difference between 2008 and 2012 voting statistics.

1. Total Recorded Vote
Obama had 52.9% of 131.4 million in 2008 and 51.0% of 129.1 in 2012 (1.9% difference).

2. Early Voting
Although the exact numbers are unknown, media reports indicated that Obama led the early voting by substantial margins in both 2008 and 2012. Based on his estimated 2008 and 2012 True Vote Model shares (58% and 55%, respectively), recorded (53%, 51%) and late shares (59%, 58%), then in both 2008 and 2012, his early share (57%, 55%) was 4% better than recorded and 2-3% lower than his late share.

3. Election Day Recorded Vote (including early votes)
Obama had 52.4% in 2008 and 50.3% in 2012 (2.1%)

4. Late Vote
In 2008, Obama had 59.2% of 10.2 million late votes. He had 58.0% of 11.7 million late votes in 2012 (1.2%).

5. True Vote Model
Obama led by 58.0-40.5% in 2008 (1% lower than the late vote) and by 55.2-43.1% in 2012 (3% lower).

6. Weighted State Late Vote / True Vote match
The weighted average 2008 late vote share (57.4-38.6%) closely matched (within 1%) the independent True Vote Model. The 2012 weighted late share (54.0-41.8%) closely matched the TVM (within 1%).

7. 2008 Exit Poll / Late Vote Match
Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted 2008 weighted aggregate of the state exit polls and 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll. He had 59.2% of the late vote. Just 31 states had exit polls in 2012. Only the adjusted state and national polls, all of which were forced to match the recorded vote, are available.

Related 2012 Election Analysis Posts:
Election Fraud Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/a-model-for-estimating-presidential-election-day-fraud/
Third-party Votes: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/election-fraud-2012-the-third-party-vote/
Election Fraud Proof: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/2012-election-fraud-a-true-vote-model-proof/
Late Votes and the True Vote Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/late-votes-and-the-true-vote-model-indicate-that-obama-may-have-won-by-16-million-votes/


....................Pct Obama Romney Other
Early/Elect Day.....91% 50.34% 48.07% 1.59%
Late.................9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72%
Total..............100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

....................Pct Obama Romney Other
Early...............31% 55.00% 44.00% 1.00%
Election Day........60% 48.00% 50.00% 2.00%
Late.................9% 57.99% 38.29% 3.72%
Total..............100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

Recorded
Calculated.........100% 51.07% 47.09% 1.84%
Official...........100% 51.03% 47.19% 1.78%

Obama Vote Shares Required to Match 51.0% Recorded Share
(Obama had 58.0% of 11.7 million Late Votes)
Early Election Day
48% 51.62%
49% 51.10%
50% 50.58%
51% 50.07%
52% 49.55%
53% 49.03%
54% 48.52%
55% 48.00%
56% 47.48%
57% 46.97%

Vote Share Sensitivity to Early and Election Day Shares

............Obama Election Day Share
Early 48.00% 50.00% 52.00% 54.00% 56.00%
Share.........Obama Total Share
58% 52.00% 53.20% 54.40% 55.60% 56.80%
57% 51.69% 52.89% 54.09% 55.29% 56.49%
56% 51.38% 52.58% 53.78% 54.98% 56.18%
55% 51.07% 52.27% 53.47% 54.67% 55.87% < True Vote
54% 50.76% 51.96% 53.16% 54.36% 55.56%

53% 50.45% 51.65% 52.85% 54.05% 55.25%
52% 50.14% 51.34% 52.54% 53.74% 54.94%
51% 49.83% 51.03% 52.23% 53.43% 54.63%
50% 49.52% 50.72% 51.92% 53.12% 54.32%
49% 49.21% 50.41% 51.61% 52.81% 54.01%

2012 True Vote Model (2-party)

2008... True Share Alive Cast............Mix Obama Romney Obama Romney
Obama. 76,196 58.00% 72,386 68,767.........54.2% 90% 10% 61,890 6,877
McCain 52,995 40.34% 50,346 47,828.........37.7% 7% 93% 3,348 44,480
Other....2,185 01.66% 2,076 1,972...........1.5% 50% 50% 986 986
DNV..........................8,265..........6.5% 59% 41% 4,874 3,390

Total 131,372 100.0% 124,808 126,832.........100% 56.1% 43.9% 71,099 55,733

.........................................Recorded 51.0% 47.2% 64,709 59,881
..........................................2-party 51.9% 48.1%
........................................Projected 51.6% 48.4%

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry:
Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV
National Exit Poll (unadjusted): 51.7%
State exit poll aggregate (unadjusted): 51.7%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama:
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
National Exit Poll (unadjusted): 61.0%
State exit poll aggregate (unadjusted): 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama:
Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Recorded: 51.0%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 9, 2013 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2013
Updated:Sept.7, 2013

This 2012 True Vote Model analysis will show that Obama overcame the systemic, built-in 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won by an official 51.0-47.2%, a 5.0 million margin. But he had an approximate 55-43% True Vote, a 15.5 million margin.

Media Gospel
An objective analysis shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. Media pundits, academics and politicians are quick to accept the recorded result in every election as gospel. But the landslide was denied, just like it was in 2008 and six previous elections.

Exit pollsters always assume that both prior and current elections were fair but that the exit poll samples biased. So they adjust exit poll weights and vote shares to match the sacrosanct recorded vote. They never consider the possibility that their samples were good and the elections were fraudulent.

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls.
In 2012, just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents the calculation of the total aggregate vote share.
Unadjusted 2012 state and national presidential exit polls have not been made available. Furthermore, in another omission, the How Voted in 2008 category was not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll demographic cross tabs displayed on media polling websites.

Is it just a coincidence that the past vote has consistently been a key factor in proving systemic election fraud in every election since 1988? In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the pollsters claimed there were millions of returning Bush voters from the prior election than were alive. 

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on exit poll transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to see raw precinct data. So why is the NEP hiding this critical information? If election fraud was non-existent, the data would have been released. There can only be one reason: the data would provide absolute proof that elections are fraudulent. But a robust statistical analysis of the red-shift in state and national unadjusted exit polls proves beyond all doubt that election fraud is systemic. 

Conspiracy Theory?
Either election fraud is systemic or elections are fair. Those still not convinced by the overwhelming statistical and factual evidence and maintain that election fraud is just a conspiracy theory are welcome to try and refute the following analysis.

If the 2008 election was not fraudulent, then the 2008 recorded vote (Obama had 52.9%, a 9.5 million vote margin) is a reasonable basis for estimating returning voters in 2012. Assuming plausible vote shares applied to returning and new voters results in a close match to Obama’s recorded margin.

On the other hand, if 2008 was fraudulent, then Obama’s 2008 unadjusted state 58.0% exit poll aggregate, 61.0% unadjusted National Exit Poll and 58.0% True Vote Model shares were essentially correct. Using the 58.0% True Vote share as the basis for estimating returning voters in 2012 and applying the same plausible vote shares as above, Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 56.1-43.9% (2-party), a 15.5 million margin.

There are some who believe that Election Fraud is systemic, but was thwarted in 2012 by the Anonymous hack or government oversight. These factors may have prevented some late vote-rigging. But the True Vote Model and Late Vote analysis results were consistent with 2008. Vote switching algorithms were in effect on Election Day in most states. Why should 2012 have been any different?

Smoking Gun: The Past Vote
All 2012 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were posed to 25,000 respondents, but the most important one is missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? The past vote question has always been asked in prior exit polls. In at least four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008), the returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted NEP was mathematically (and physically) impossible. Each poll indicated that there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a clear indication of a fraudulent vote count.

The 2012 True Vote Model rectifies the NEP return voter anomaly by calculating feasible estimates of returning voters from the prior election.

Sensitivity Analysis
Pollsters and pundits and academics never do a sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios. Is it because they have never considered this powerful modeling tool? Or is it because they know it would produce results that they would rather not talk about?

The 2012 True Vote Model Base Case assumptions were as follows:
1. Obama won the 2008 True Vote: 58%-40.3%
2. Obama and McCain 2008 voters turned out at a 95% rate in 2012
3. Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters and 7% of McCain
4. Obama had 59% of new voters; McCain had 41%
Obama had a 56.1% (two-party) True Vote share and won by 15.5 million votes.

Romney needed to win 18% of returning Obama voters and 93% of returning McCain voters in order to match the recorded share (given the 2008 voter turnout assumption). In other words, there had to be an implausible 11% net defection of Obama voters to Romney.

Given the base case vote share assumptions, Romney needed an implausibly low 72% turnout of Obama 2008 voters and 95% turnout of McCain voters in order to match the recorded vote.

2008 National Exit Poll
To put the 2012 True Vote Model base case assumptions in context, let’s review the 2008 National Exit Poll. Obama had 89% of returning Kerry voters, 17% of returning Bush voters and 72% of those who did not vote in 2004. But to force a match to the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%), the poll indicated that 46% (60.3 million) of the 2008 electorate were returning Bush voters and just 37% (48.6 million) were returning Kerry voters. This is an impossibility; it implies that 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned to vote in 2008.

On the other hand, assuming Kerry won the True Vote by 53.7-45.3%, the returning 2004 voter mix is a feasible Kerry 47.5/Bush 40.0% and Obama won the True Vote by 58.0-40.3%.

The Late Vote – a True Vote Confirmation
The recurring pattern of the Democratic presidential late vote share exceeding the Election Day share by approximately 7% is additional confirmation of fraud. In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48.1% in the 117.4 million votes recorded on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% margin in the final 11.7 million late recorded votes (129.1 million total). Nearly half of his total margin came from late votes.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama won the weighted aggregate state late vote by 57.4-38.6%, within 1% of the weighted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the late vote by 54.0-41.8%. The 12.2% margin exactly matched the 2-party True Vote Model (56.1-43.9%). The fact that the weighted late shares matched the True Vote Model in both 2008 and 2012 is compelling evidence that the national late vote is representative of the national electorate.

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day shares.

Red Shift
There was an overwhelmingly one-sided exit poll red-shift to the Republicans in all presidential elections since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The True Vote Model indicates a 53-41% margin, yet they won the official recorded vote by just 48-46%. The final published exit polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water.
 
National Exit Poll Crosstab Adjustments
The 2012 National Exit Poll Party-ID category indicates a 39D-32R-29I split. Was the unadjusted Democratic share lowered to force a match to the recorded vote? Let’s consider the 2004 and 2008 elections.

The 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a 45.5D-27.3R-27.2I Party-ID split. It was adjusted to 39/32/29 to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, the Democrats led the pre-election Party ID polling by 38-35-27. The split was changed to 37-37-26 in the adjusted NEP to force a match to the recorded vote. 

In 2004, Bush had a 48% average approval rating in 11 pre-election polls and 50% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate. The rating was adjusted to 53% in the NEP to match the recorded vote. 


2012 True Vote Model
Voted...2008 2012 2-party vote shares
2008 Implied Votes Mix Obama Romney
DNV.......... 10.4 8.20% 59.0% 41.0%
Obama...58.0% 67.6 53.3% 90.0% 7.00%
McCain..40.4% 46.9 37.0% 7.00% 93.0%
Other...1.60% 1.90 1.50% 50.0% 50.0%

Total...100% 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9%
Votes..............126.8 71.1 55.7

2012 Sensitivity Analysis
....Pct of returning Obama
.... 82.5% 90.0% 92.0%
%McCain
.....Obama 2-party Share
10% 53.1% 57.2% 58.3%
7% 51.9% 56.1% 57.1%
4% 50.8% 54.9% 56.0%
....... Margin
10% 7.8 18.2 21.0
7% 5.0 15.4 18.1
4% 2.1 12.5 15.3

Sensitivity Analysis I: 2008 WAS FRAUDULENT
Obama had 58.0% (True Vote)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning Obama 2008 voters
Pct EV Share Margin
90% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
88% 371 54.97% 12,614
86% 333 53.89% 9,864
84% 318 52.80% 7,113
82% 315 51.72% 4,362 Recorded

b)Obama 90% of returning Obama
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
90% 371 55.05% 12,807
85% 333 53.95% 10,032
80% 318 52.77% 7,018
77% 318 52.00% 5,083 Recorded

Sensitivity Analysis II: 2008 WAS NOT FRAUDULENT
Obama had 52.9% (recorded)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning 2008 Obama voters
Pct EV Share Margin
91% 332 52.16% 5,491 Recorded
90% 303 51.67% 4,238
88% 285 50.68% 1,730
86% 272 49.69% -777
84% 253 48.71% -3,285

b)Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 303 51.67% 4,238 Recorded
93% 303 51.25% 3,177
91% 285 50.82% 2,087
89% 285 50.38% 964
87% 272 49.92% -191

Late Vote Confirms the True Vote
Year 2pty Obama Repub Other Margin
2008 59.8 57.4 38.6 4.0 18.8 late
2008 59.0 58.0 40.3 1.7 17.7 true
2012 56.4 54.0 41.8 4.2 12.2 late
2012 56.1 55.0 43.0 2.0 12.0 true

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2004 Sample Kerry Bush Other
Total 13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 100.0% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 125.7 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%
Votes...... 125.7 65.1 58.8 1.8

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(17,836 respondents)
2008 Sample Obama McCain Other
Total 17.836 10,873 6,641 322
Share 100.0% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

2008 Party ID
2008 Sample Dem Rep Other
Total 17,774 8,096 4,851 4,827
Share 100.0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.2%

Final 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote)
Voted...2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV........... 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry...42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush....52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other...4.60% 5.30 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total...100% 131.5 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes............. 131.5 69.50 59.95 2.02

How Voted in 2004
Voted Kerry Bush Other DNV Total
2004....1,815 1,614 188 561 4,178
Share...43.5% 38.6% 4.5% 13.4% 100%

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Voted...2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV........... 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry...50.2% 57.1 43.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush... 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other...5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total...100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes.............. 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

2008 True Vote Model
(Returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted...2004 2008
2004 True Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV.......... 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry...53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush....45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other...1.00% 1.16 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total...100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes............. 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1

____________________________________________________________________

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry:
Projected 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
Recorded: 48.3%, 255 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 2, 2013 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models

 

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

Four Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Four Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 23, 2012

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there were repetitive patterns in the cumulative county vote shares over four recent Wisconsin elections. The patterns are obvious; the county graphs are virtual duplicates.

This post is a work-in-process, but since the data tables and graphs are completed, I wanted to make them available while the analysis is ongoing.

The following counties appear most anomalous: Brown, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Croix, Milwaukee, Oneida, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Sheboygan, Trempealeau, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago.

Republican vote shares are increasing (lines slope upward) while Democratic shares decrease (slope downward) at the same rate. This is an indicator of likely vote switching.

Summary of Key Walker Recall Results
Walker won the recall by 171,000 votes (53.1-46.8%).

In 15 large counties, Barrett’s vote shares at 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 54.2%, 52.1% and 48.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.51 million of the total 2.52 million recorded votes.

Milwaukee County is the largest and most anomalous. In the recall, Barrett had 63.3% of the total 396,000 votes. But he had 74.4% at the 25% mark, 70.4% at 50% and 66.5% at 75%. Looking at Barrett’s shares in terms of remaining votes, he had 59.4% of the final 75%, 55.9% of the final 50% and 53.0% of the final 25%. In other words there was a 21.4% decline in Barrett’s 74.4% vote share of the first 100,000 votes to 53.0% in the final 100,000 votes.

Barrett’s True Vote Model 54.4% share is within 0.2% of his 15 county cumulative share at the 25% mark. His total Wisconsin share (assuming an equal level of fraud in the other 57 counties) was 52.4%.

In the 15 counties, there was a 6.0% difference between Barrett’s 54.2% at the 25% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 6.1% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 52.4% Wisconsin True Vote share.

In the 15 counties, there was a 4.0% difference between Barrett’s 52.1% at the 50% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 4.0% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 50.3% Wisconsin True Vote share.

2008 Presidential Election
The cumulative vote analysis essentially confirmed the unadjusted exit poll. Obama won the WI recorded vote by 56.2-42.7%. He won the unadjusted exit poll 63.3-35.7%, a 7.1% increase over the recorded vote share.

In 15 of the largest counties, Obama’s vote shares at the 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 62.4%, 60.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.85 million (62%) of the 2.98 million total recorded votes.

Assuming that the 25% mark of total cumulative votes represented the True Vote, the True Vote estimates vs. Recorded vote shares follow:
2008 Obama 61.5 vs. 56.2%
2010 Feingold 53.0 vs. 47.0%
2010 Barrett 53.4 vs. 46.6%
2012 Barrett 52.8 vs. 46.3%

Assuming there was Zero fraud in the other 57 counties:
2010 Barrett 50.7%
2012 Barrett 50.3%

15 Wisconsin Counties
Democratic Vote Share Trend
Votes in thousands
...................Percent of total vote
...............Votes..25%.....50%....100%
2008 President..1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07%
2010 Senate.....1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69%
2010 Governor...1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23%
2012 Gov Recall.1492 55.12% 52.71% 48.58%

Projected Wisconsin
Obama 2008......2983 61.51% 59.72% 56.20%
Feingold 2010...2161 53.02% 50.69% 47.00%
Barrett 2010....2161 53.39% 50.21% 46.58%
Barrett 2012....2516 52.38% 50.25% 46.28%

The Spreadsheets
The following spreadsheets use data provided by GAB. Note that Milwaukee County is displayed at the top of the screen in each spreadsheet to illustrate the similar cumulative vote pattern in each of the four elections.

2012 Walker recall (contains voting machine types for each county and municipality).

2010 Governor

2010 Senate

2008 Presidential

In the process of working on analysis of Wisconsin elections, I have developed a number of models and databases which are available online as Google Doc spreadsheets. They can be linked to from the following posts:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2011-wisconsin-supreme-court-recall-elections/

 

Tags: , , ,

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 1, 2013

Given 1) early voting (mail-in or hand-delivered paper ballots) and 2) late vote (absentees, provisional ballots) and 3) the total recorded vote, what is the Election Day vote share required to match the recorded vote?

This 2012 election fraud analysis shows that Obama’s Election Day vote share was 3% lower than his total recorded share (a 6% discrepancy in margin). It is a strong indicator that votes were stolen on Election Day. Obama’s late vote share was 10% higher than his Election Day share.

In 2012, there were 11.677 million late recorded votes (9.0% of the total). The late vote for each state is the difference between the current and Election Day votes. Obama had 60.2% of the two-party late vote and 51.96% of the total two-party vote.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he also won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state polls; the unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama’s weighted aggregate state late vote was 57-39%, just 1% lower than the weighted exit polls and the True Vote. In 2012, it was 54-42%, closely matching the 56% two-party True Vote model share.

In 2008, approximately 30% of total votes were cast early. Early vote rates for each state were set to the 2008 rate. Early vote shares were based on information supplied to the media. If the early vote estimate was not available, the assumption is that Obama did 2-3% lower in early voting than late.

Obama’s True Vote margin is estimated to be 15.7 million (56.1-43.9%).

Total Votes Recorded = Early Vote + Election Day Vote + Late Vote

In order to determine the Election Day vote, a simple trial and error (goal-seeking) procedure was used by adjusting the Election Day share until the total share matched the recorded vote. This is analogous to the exit pollsters stated procedure of adjusting the exit poll to match the recorded vote in each demographic cross tab by changing weights and/or vote shares. The National Exit Poll forced a match to the recorded vote in a number of elections by adjusting actual exit poll results using mathematically impossible weightings (millions more returning voters from the previous election than were alive to vote in the current election).

In this analysis, we use actual early and late recorded vote data to determine the Election Day 2-party share required to match the total recorded vote. Unlike the media, the “goal-seek” is to determine the fraud component, not ignore it.

On Election Day, Votes cast on optical scanners and DREs are vulnerable to miscounts on the central tabulators.

Florida
Percent of total vote: Early 52%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (49.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Ohio
Percent of total vote: Early 25%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.4%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

Iowa
Percent of total vote: Early 36%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (51.1%), Romney needed 70% on Election Day.

North Carolina (zero late vote?)
Percent of total vote: Early 60%; Late 0%
To match his 2-party share (47.3%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

California
Percent of total vote: Early 45%; Late 27%
To match his 2-party share (38.1%), Romney needed 46% on Election Day.

Arizona
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 29%
To match his 2-party share (54.9%), Romney needed 60% on Election Day.

Virginia
Percent of total vote: Early 14%; Late 4%
To match his 2-party share (48.0%), Romney needed 51% on Election Day.

New Mexico
Percent of total vote: Early 62%; Late 2%
To match his 2-party share (45.1%), Romney needed 48% on Election Day.

Georgia
Percent of total vote: Early 53%; Late 1%
To match his 2-party share (53.1%), Romney needed 58% on Election Day.

National Vote – forced to match the recorded share
How Voted (2-party)………….Votes Pct Obama Romney
Early voting (paper)…………40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0%
Election Day…………………75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0%
Late Votes (paper)…………..11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%

Recorded Share……….126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1%
Total Votes (mil)………………………… 65.85 60.98

…….. Obama Election Day %
…….. 49.0% 52.0% 56.0%
Early Obama Share
56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4%
55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1%
49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1%
Margin
56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2
55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4
49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2012 in 2012 Election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 752 other followers