RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Democratic Primary True Vote Model: Sanders has 52%

Democratic Primaries True Vote Model: Bernie has 52%

Richard Charnin
June 19, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52.3% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

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

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

TRUE VOTE MODEL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

1.Sanders won the caucuses with 63.9% 
2.  20% of voters  were disenfranchised  (voter rolls, provisional ballots, etc.) .
3. Sanders won 75% of uncounted votes 
4. 10% of Sanders’ votes flipped to Clinton.

Clinton had 51.7% in 26 primaries after adjusting  the exit polls for uncounted votes.

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

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS    UNCOUNTED BALLOTS
75% Unctd to Sanders 10% 20% 30%
  Flipped to Clinton   Sanders total Share  
15% 51.1% 52.5% 54.0%
10% 50.5% 52.0% 53.5%
5% 50.0% 51.5% 52.9%

CALIFORNIA

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

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.8-43.2% in machine-counted mail-in ballots.  Sanders leads in hand-counted mail-ins by 51.1-48.9% (391,012-374,839 votes).  This indicates that approximately 14% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton.  Sanders hand-counted vote share exceeded his machine-counted share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

 TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin
  RECORDED 53.5% 46.5% -6.9%
    TRUE VOTE 48.0% 52.0% 4.0%
CAUCUS Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
  36.1% 63.9% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
           
IA 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% -0.3%
NV 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% -5.3%
CO 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 18.8%
MN 38.4% 61.6% 38.4% 61.6% 23.3%
KS 32.3% 67.7% 32.3% 67.7% 35.5%
NE 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 14.3%
ME 35.6% 64.4% 35.6% 64.4% 28.7%
ID 22.0% 78.0% 22.0% 78.0% 56.0%
UT 20.7% 79.3% 20.7% 79.3% 58.6%
AK 18.4% 81.6% 18.4% 81.6% 63.3%
HI 30.1% 69.9% 30.1% 69.9% 39.8%
WA 27.1% 72.9% 27.1% 72.9% 45.7%
WY 45.3% 54.7% 45.3% 54.7% 9.4%
ND 28.5% 71.5% 28.5% 71.5% 43.0%
EXIT POLL   UNCTD VOTE  ADJUST  
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 54.0% 46.0% 51.7% 48.3% -3.5%
           
VT 13.0% 87.0% 12.0% 88.0% 76.0%
NH 39.6% 60.4% 37.4% 62.6% 25.1%
WI 37.0% 63.0% 34.9% 65.1% 30.2%
NC 56.3% 43.7% 54.1% 45.9% -8.2%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 61.8% 38.2% -23.7%
SC 68.7% 31.3% 66.7% 33.3% -33.4%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 49.6% 50.4% 0.7%
MI 46.8% 53.2% 44.6% 55.4% 10.8%
VA 62.4% 37.6% 60.3% 39.7% -20.6%
MS 83.4% 16.6% 82.1% 17.9% -64.2%
GA 65.7% 34.3% 63.6% 36.4% -27.3%
TX 61.5% 38.5% 59.3% 40.7% -18.7%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 46.6% 53.4% 6.9%
IN 44.6% 55.4% 42.4% 57.6% 15.2%
PA 54.7% 45.3% 52.5% 47.5% -4.9%
NY 52.0% 48.0% 49.7% 50.3% 0.5%
MA 46.7% 53.3% 44.5% 55.5% 11.1%
CT 51.6% 48.4% 49.4% 50.6% 1.3%
AZ 37.0% 63.0% 34.9% 65.1% 30.2%
AL 73.2% 26.8% 71.3% 28.7% -42.7%
TN 63.2% 36.8% 61.0% 39.0% -22.1%
AR 66.0% 34.0% 64.0% 36.0% -27.9%
MD 65.6% 34.4% 63.6% 36.4% -27.1%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 45.9% 54.1% 8.3%
OK 47.8% 52.2% 45.5% 54.5% 8.9%
WV 39.9% 60.1% 37.7% 62.3% 24.5%
NO EXIT POLL   UNCTD &  FLIPPED VOTE   
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 56.28% 43.72% 46.38% 53.62% 7.24%
CA 56.32% 43.68% 46.41% 53.59% 7.19%
KY 50.2% 49.8% 41.8% 58.2% 16.3%
MT 46.6% 53.4% 39.1% 60.9% 21.7%
NJ 63.2% 36.8% 51.5% 48.5% -3.1%
NM 51.5% 48.5% 42.8% 57.2% 14.4%
SD 51.0% 49.0% 42.4% 57.6% 15.1%
LA 75.4% 24.6% 60.7% 39.3% -21.5%
DE 60.4% 39.6% 49.5% 50.5% 1.1%
RI 44.1% 55.9% 37.2% 62.8% 25.5%
OR 43.3% 56.7% 36.7% 63.3% 26.7%
DC 79.5% 20.5% 63.8% 36.2% -27.6%

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
14 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

Richard Charnin
June 13, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

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

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

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

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

Vote shares  adjusted to match the final CNN exit poll

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

Vote shares  adjusted to match the preliminary ABC exit poll

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

Inline image

 
12 Comments

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

 

Tags: , ,

Democratic primary: Sanders Approval ratings matching pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Democratic primary: Sanders’ approval ratings match to pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Richard Charnin
June 8, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This brief post will provide further evidence that Sanders is leading the total primary vote. It is based on the historical fact that approval ratings are highly correlated to national pre-election polls, exit polls and vote shares.

Clinton is leading by approximately 3 million votes (56-44%). But she has a 42% favorability rating. It is highly anomalous and counter-intuitive when compared to Sanders 49% rating.  Clinton’s  declining ratings are a source of worry for the DNC.

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

The strong correlation of ratings and vote shares indicates Sanders is leading the True Vote by an estimated 1.7 million margin (53.5-46.5%). View Sanders’ favorable/unfavorable ratings.

Clinton favorable/unfavorable ratings – Real Clear Politics

Clinton Poll Date Sample
Favorable
Unfavorable
Spread
RCP Average 5/1 – 5/30 37.4 55.5 -18.1
Quinnipiac 5/24 – 5/30 1561 RV 37 57 -20
The Economist/YouGov* 5/20 – 5/23 2000 RV 43 54 -11
ABC News/Wash Post 5/16 – 5/19 829 RV 41 57 -16
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/15 – 5/19 1000 RV 34 54 -20
FOX News 5/14 – 5/17 1021 RV 37 61 -24
CBS News/NY Times 5/13 – 5/17 1109 RV 31 52 -21
Gallup 5/1 – 5/22 10598 A 40 54 -14
PPP (D) 5/6 – 5/9 1222 RV 36 55 -19

In a previous post,  the True Vote was estimated from actual caucus votes, exit polls, estimated manipulation of voter rolls, absentee and provisional ballots. Sanders leads by 51.5-48.5% (800,000 votes). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/democratic-primaries-is-clinton-leading-by-3-million-votes/

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries  exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Sanders won 13 of 14 caucuses with an average 65.4% vote share and 9 of 36 primaries with a 43.9% average share. The probability of the 21.5% difference occurring by chance is 2.27% (the probability of election fraud is 97.73%).

Prob = 97.73% =normsdist (ZS), where ZS = 2.00 = .21/ sqrt(.135/36 +.109/14)
.135 is the standard deviation for the primaries
.109 is the standard deviation for the caucuses

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the 2004 election,  the Bush approval rating trend was highly correlated  (0.87) to his monthly pre-election polls. 

The UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS tracked closely to the STATE APPROVAL RATINGS. There was a near-perfect 0.99 CORRELATION  between the  polls and approval ratings.

 

 
21 Comments

Posted by on June 8, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Richard Charnin
May 28, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

The 3 million Clinton vote margin is repeated endlessly by the media. This analysis shows that the number is grossly inflated. Sanders may very well be leading the popular vote and corresponding delegate count. This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sanders has done much better than his recorded vote:

– Actual votes in caucus states are not included in the count – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Exit polls indicated voting machines were hacked – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Voter rolls were manipulated – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Long lines and reduced polling stations reduced voter turnout – to the benefit of Clinton.

Sanders leads by approximately 780,000 votes (51.5-48.5%), assuming a) caucus votes are included, b) unadjusted exit polls represent the true vote, c) 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised and d) 5% of Clinton’s votes were fraudulent early/absentee ballots.  View the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders won the caucuses easily. The largest states were MN, WA, CO. The actual votes were approximated by multiplying caucus vote shares by the state voting population, which is proportional to the electoral vote.

Votes for the primaries were calculated based on late exit polls. Sanders did approximately 4% better in the polls than in his recorded share. The National Election Pool discontinued exit polls after the Indiana primary.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries which were exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190.000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? 

Exit polls and caucuses indicate that Sanders has won 30 of 44 states and leads the electoral vote by  259-193. Clinton’s margin is reduced from 3 million to 1.3 million based on actual caucus votes and unadjusted exit polls.

A conservative estimate is that  10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised due to long lines, reduced polling stations, switched/dropped party registrations,  uncounted provisional ballots, etc.  And  5% of Clinton’s votes were due to absentee ballot stuffing. New York, Arizona, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts and the southern red states are prime examples.

After adjusting for actual caucus votes and exit polls:

Clinton has won 11 RED states (normally Republican) by 2.1 million votes (64-36%)- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Clinton leads RED states by approximately 1.6 million (61-39%).

Sanders leads the non-RED states by 1.1 million- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Sanders leads non-RED states by approximately 57-43%, a 2.4 million vote margin.

Sanders leads overall by approximately one million votes.

Recorded Vote

Clinton Sanders Margin Total Clinton Sanders Margin
12,985 9,981 3,004 22,966 56.5% 43.5% 13.0%

Exit Poll/ actual caucus votes

Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
12,864 11,816 1,048 52.1% 47.9% 4.2%

Other adjustments

  Sanders   Clinton   Margin
 Vote(000) Recorded 9,981 43.5% 12,985 56.5% -3,004
Exit Poll +Caucus  Adjusted  11,816 47.9% 12,864 52.1% -1,048
Other: Reg switch/flip+Absentee/ provisional Final Adjusted 12,998 (+10%) 51.5% 12,221   (-5%) 48.5% 777
TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
PRIMARIES 56.5% 43.5% -13.0% 12,985 9,981 -3,004
RED STATES
South Carolina 68.7% 31.3% -37.3% 252 115 -137
Arkansas 66.0% 34.0% -32.0% 138 71 -67
Alabama 73.2% 26.8% -46.3% 283 104 -179
Tennessee 63.2% 36.8% -26.3% 231 135 -96
Virginia 62.4% 37.6% -24.9% 486 292 -194
Georgia 65.7% 34.3% -31.4% 498 260 -238
Texas 61.5% 38.5% -23.0% 868 543 -325
Louisiana 75.4% 24.6% -50.8% 222 72 -149
Mississippi 78.5% 21.5% -57.0% 182 36 -146
North Carolina 56.3% 43.7% -12.7% 607 470 -136
Florida 64.0% 36.0% -27.9% 1,064 600 -464

 

TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
TOTAL (EP+Caucus) 52.1% 48.1% -3.8% 12,865 11,817 -1,048
RED States 64.2% 35.8% 28.3% 4,831 2,698 -2,133
OTHER States 46.8% 53.2% -6.3% 8,034 9,119 1,085
OTHER, net Disenfranchised  43.2% 56.8% -13.6% 7,632 10,031 2,398
RED, net Disenfranchised 60.7% 39.3% 21.5% 4,589 2,968 -1,622
Adjusted Total 48.5% 51.5% -3.1% 12,222 12,998 777
Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by at least the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries:AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV
The probability is 1 in 76.8 BILLION:
P = 1 – binomdist (10, 26, 0.025,true)
 
 Probability
26 Exit Polls
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image

 

 

 
44 Comments

Posted by on May 28, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 2016 

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob of Fraud
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
Probability that at least n of 26 Exit Polls exceed the margin of error for Sanders
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image
 
43 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Primaries: Hillary wins the lottery

Richard Charnin
May 12, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share has exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV. The probability P that at least 11 exit polls would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

P = 1 in 76.8 BILLION = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,0.025,true)

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

The Margin of Error(MoE) is based on the number of respondents and  the vote shares:
MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),   where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents, 1.3 is the exit poll cluster factor adjustment. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.

The probability is based on the difference  between the exit poll share (EP) and recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If  the difference is equal to the MoE, there is a 97.5% probability of fraud.The probability is calculated using the Normal distribution
P = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true).

West Virginia

The results strongly suggest election fraud.  There were 734 respondents in the unadjusted exit poll and 763 in the adjusted final (forced to match the recorded vote). How could Sanders vote share decline by 6% with just 29 additional respondents? How could Other candidates vote share change by 7.5%?

Unadjusted:734 respondents Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 47% 59% 36% 5%
Female 53% 56% 40% 4%
Total 100% 57.4% 38.1% 4.5%
2-party  100% 60.1% 39.9%
Adjusted: 763 Forced to match recorded vote
Male 47% 53% 35% 12%
Female 53% 50% 38% 12%
Total 100% 51.4% 36.6% 12.0%
2-party  100% 58.4% 41.6%

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll      
Unadjusted -1323 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted Forced to match the recorded vote
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Summary Table

Exit poll margin of error, Sanders recorded vote share, Sanders exit poll,  difference between the exit poll and recorded vote and the estimated probability of fraud. Primaries in which the exit poll exceeded the recorded vote by at least the margin of error (at least 97.5% probability of fraud) are shown in bold.
Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit -Vote Fraud Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ (Yavapai) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
 
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
 Inline image
 Probability that at least n of 26 exit polls would exceed the margin of error
n; 1 in
1 3
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
 
31 Comments

Posted by on May 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System

Richard Charnin
May 5, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Tim Robbins, a fine actor and dedicated progressive activist, wrote We Need to Fix Our Election System in the Huffington Post. We need more of his kind.

“Going into Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Indiana, polls showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by around 7 percent. The final tally had Sanders up by 6 percent, a 13 point difference that seems to follow a pattern of polling discrepancies in this primary process that are quite troubling. A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve? It certainly did with Joshua Holland, who wrote in Raw Story that I was involved with a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism.” He then goes on to refute the claims of election fraud with seemingly empirical statistical evidence. Now, I am not a mathematician. But Richard Charnin is. He has two master’s degrees in applied mathematics and has followed presidential elections since 1952. He took issue with Mr. Holland’s article. I defer to his expertise: “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland.”

Read the rest of the article here. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,291 other followers