RSS

Tag Archives: exit poll

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: , ,

The NY Democratic Primary Quiz

The NY Democratic Primary Quiz

Richard Charnin
April 23, 2016

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

Let’s review the adjustments as a quiz.

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

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

11.The probability of the 11.8% exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote is
a) 1 in 91,000, b) 1 in 94,000, c) 1 in 102,000
12. The probability that Sanders exit poll share would be greater than his recorded share in 21 of 23 primaries is a) 1 in 13,000, b) 1 in 30,000, c) 1 in 40,000
13. In the NY Cumulative Vote Share analysis, Sanders and Clinton were tied after
a) 400,000, b) 500,000, c) 600,000 of 1.79 million total votes

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

 
14 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin
4/13/2016

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

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

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

Wyoming

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

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

Wisconsin

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

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

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

Arizona

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

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

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

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

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

Super Tuesday

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

Inline image

DATA SOURCES
The table 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.

Michigan

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Massachusetts

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

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

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

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

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.

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

 

 
37 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , ,

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 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 Exit Poll (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

This post is an overview of major advances in technology which ultimately proved that election fraud is systemic. There were three major turning points:

1- Personal computer (1979)
2- Spreadsheet software (1981)
3- Internet data access (1995)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COMPUTERS AND SPREADSHEET TECHNOLOGY

Before the advent of the personal computer,  mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals  in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. I programmed the 7094 IBM mainframe , a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. I was hired by Merrill Lynch on Wall Street as a manager of software development in Investment Banking. I continued to program in FORTRAN- this time for financial models.

In the late 1970s, the personal computer became available. They were considered as toys (myself included) until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden, I could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. When Lotus 1-2-3 became available in 1982, it had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately began to convert my financial FORTRAN programs to spreadsheets – and added graphics capabilities. I continued to use Lotus as a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations until 1995 when I switched to Excel (which was used along with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models).

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud. 

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous  election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gun in detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008. 

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes, not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll  was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)
Total Gore Bush Nader Other
13,108 6,359 6,065 523 161
48.51% 46.27% 3.99% 1.23%

 

2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 17,732 16% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 48,763 44% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,464 32% 7% 91% 2%
Perot/other 8,866 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total cast 110,825 100% 50.68% 45.60% 3.72%
110,825 56,166 50,536 4,123

 

2000 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 18,982 18% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 42,183 40% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,856 34% 7% 91% 2%
Other 8,437 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total 105,458 100% 48.38% 47.87% 3.75%
105,458 51,004 50,456 3,998

2004

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and  State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. He won the Tue Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters) by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.  

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

                                           2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)
Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 47.0% 1.3%

 

                   2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
                             (implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.38% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48,248 38.37% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49,670 39.50% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4,703 3.74% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 51.8% 46.8% 1.5%
125,737 65,070 58,829 1,838

 

2004 Final Adjusted National Exit Poll
                      (Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV 20,790 17% 54% 44% 2%
Gore 45,249 37% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93%
Bush 52,586 43% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110%
Other 3,669 3% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Total 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% 100,185 94%
59,031 62,040 1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll with 61% (a 30 million vote margin) and the  State Exit Poll aggregate with 58% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

                                      2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents)
Obama McCain Other
17,836 10,873 6,641 322
100% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

 

                      2008 Final National Exit Poll
                      (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER Mix Obama McCain Other
Male 47% 49% 49% 2%
Female 53% 56% 43% 1%
Share 100% 52.87% 45.59% 1.54%
Votes(mil) 131.463 69.50 59.94 2.02

 

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
 (plausible returning 2004 voter mix)
Voted 2004 2008 Exact match to TVM & unadj state exit pollls
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.66 13.43% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 50.18% 57.11 43.44% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 44.62% 50.78 38.63% 17% 82% 1%
Other 5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 58.00% 40.35% 1.65%
Votes 131.463 76.25 53.04 2.17

 

Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted 2004 2008 impossible returning 2004 voters)
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.09 13% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 42.53% 48.64 37% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 52.87% 60.47 46% 17% 82% 1%
Other 4.60% 5.26 4% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes 131.463 69.50 59.95 2.02

2004 Sensitivity Analysis

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_foUi89DGNmwspKRFTgh5tOjjba4el2GLJEJLK-M2V8/edit#gid=0

How is Kerry’s vote share effected by changes in vote share assumptions? Consider the following matrices (tables). He wins all plausible scenarios.

2004 True Vote Model
                    (Plausible 2000 returning voter mix)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 22,381 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52,055 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47,403 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3,898 3.1% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.4%
67,362 56,666 1,709
                           Kerry share of returning Gore voters
Kerry share 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
returning Bush 2000                                              Kerry Vote Share
12.0% 53.2% 53.6% 54.1% 54.5% 54.9%
11.0% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.5%
10.0% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1%
9.0% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
8.0% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.4%
      Margin (000)    
12.0% 9,827 10,859 11,892 12,924 13,956
11.0% 8,871 9,903 10,935 11,967 13,000
10.0% 7,914 8,946 9,978 11,011 12,043
9.0% 6,957 7,990 9,022 10,054 11,086
8.0% 6,001 7,033 8,065 9,097 10,130
2004                     Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Kerry share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
returning Bush 2000   Kerry Vote Share  
12.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.4% 54.8%
11.0% 53.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.0% 54.4%
10.0% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6% 54.0%
9.0% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6%
8.0% 51.8% 52.2% 52.5% 52.9% 53.2%
      Margin    
12.0% 10,098 10,995 11,892 12,789 13,686
11.0% 9,141 10,038 10,935 11,832 12,729
10.0% 8,184 9,081 9,978 10,876 11,773
9.0% 7,228 8,125 9,022 9,919 10,816
8.0% 6,271 7,168 8,065 8,962 9,859
Kerry Win Probability  53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0%  61.0%
Win Prob  (3% MoE)
12.0% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0%
11.0% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0%
10.0% 98.4% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9%
9.0% 97.2% 98.4% 99.1% 99.6% 99.8%
8.0% 95.1% 97.0% 98.3% 99.1% 99.5%
 

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Lindeman: Still Blowing Exit Poll Smoke After All These Years

Richard Charnin
Feb. 21, 2016
Updated: Feb.24, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

Mark Lindeman: Still Blowing Exit Poll Smoke After All These Years

Mark Lindeman posts as Hudson Valley Mark on Daily Kos.  He previously posted as OnTheOtherHand on Democratic Underground  where I debated frequently with him.  The key debates are in my 456 page E-book Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll.

Mark is a prolific exit poll skeptic who has made a career trying to dismiss my analysis starting in 2005 and right up to the present. He is obsessed with discrediting my analysis whenever my work is cited. But has only succeeded in being exposed as a world-class election fraud naysayer in the process.  Mark is intelligent and writes well. But if one makes the effort to analyze the facts, his sophisticated deception and obvious agenda to misinform becomes clear. In 2006, I thoroughly debunked Mark in the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ  (I posted as TruthIsAll).

Mark is one of the cadre of professional disinformationists in the media, academia and government. These shameless naysayers are unceasing in their attempts to discredit honest researchers who have proven that many conspiracies are factual based on solid evidence, simple mathematics and the scientific method. 

Mark commented in the Kos thread below:  “The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen”.

That is not what Mark said in 2005 when he totally dismissed the evidence that the election was stolen.  It’s 2016 and Mark is still promoting the corporate media fiction that there is no proof that Bush stole the 2000/2004 elections.  That is patently false.

 Mark dismisses the  mathematically impossible  “red shift” in  274 state and 6 national presidential exit polls in the 1988-2008 elections.  Of the 274 polls, 135 exceeded the margin of error and 131 red-shifted to the GOP. The Democrats led the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 52-42% but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%.  The probability of the red-shift is one in trillions. How much proof does one need? It’s all in the numbers.  And the statistical evidence is overwhelming .

 I was banned from Daily Kos in 2005 for having the gall to post that Bush stole the 2004 election. Believe it or not, election fraud was a taboo topic at that time on Kos. And yet Markos Moulitsas, who claims to be a Democrat, would not allow postings claiming the election was stolen. But he had company: The NYT, CBS, CNN, FOX, AP and the Washington Post belittled  those “tin-foil hat” conspiracy theorists. 

The comments in this Daily Kos thread illustrate Lindeman’s mastery of deflection and obfuscation. The poster out of left field does a good job in defending my work. 

A few quick comments:

Mark states that the exit polls in MN, NY, PA, NH showed impossible discrepancies compared to the pre-election polls. To be precise, the exit polls were MN 56.3-42.4% vs. 51.1-47.6% recorded, NY 62.1-36.2% vs. 58.4-40.1%,  PA 56.6-42.9% vs. 50.9-48.4%, NH 56.7-42.0% vs. 50.2-48.9%. What Mark does not say is that the pre-election polls are Likely Voter (LV)  polls, a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls. The LVs always understate the Democratic vote. Mark is saying that the exit pollsters never get it right, but the pre-election pollsters do. How ridiculous is that?  Bush stole votes in strong Democratic states to generate his bogus 3 million recorded vote margin.  

View the 2004 unadjusted exit poll stats.  Note that Kerry won the National Exit poll (13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a nearly identical 51.8-46.8% assuming the 2004 electorate was comprised of an implausible mix: 39.5% Bush/ 38.4% Gore  returning voters. Kerry won the True Vote by 53.6-45.1% assuming a plausible returning voter mix: 41.4% Gore/ 37.7% Bush.

 Mark states” the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.) So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts”.

Mark is the one who is melting.  The ANES study was based on RECORDED VOTE data, not the True Vote (i.e. exit poll). To claim that 2004 exit poll respondents  forgot or misstated who they voted for in 2000 is ludicrous on its face. This sleight-of-hand is analogous to Mark’ s Swing vs. Redshift argument in which he parrots exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s argument that  zero correlation between 2000 to 2004 vote swing and 2004 red-shift “kills the fraud argument”. But this faulty logic is based on a bogus  premise that Recorded Vote Swing represents fraud-free elections. When red-shift is plotted against True Vote Swing, there is an obvious correlation in the downward-sloping graph. View this  Swing vs. red shift analysis and corresponding True Vote graph.

Catskill Julie  Oct 15 · 07:40:01 AM

I sure hope we have our own “mobs” ready

to protect those ballots and assure they are all counted this time. Mark, I didn’t look it up, but I thought in fact the exit polls were right(er) in 2000. ? Isn’t that where a lot of the distrust arose?

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 08:09:55 AM

it’s true that the exit polls were righter in 2000

I think the distrust arose because some smart-sounding people insisted, immediately after the 2004 elections, that exit polls had always (or almost always) been phenomenally accurate in the past, so accurate that they were used around the world to detect election fraud.

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

That aside, if I had a do-over, instead of responding to all the claims point by point, I would probably point to a few of the most ridiculous exit poll results and say, “Really?!” Not that that always works.

Of course, saying that the exit polls were wrong doesn’t say much about what happened, or what could happen.

I doubt we need “mobs” to protect ballots, but in some cases observers can help. (Some states have much better ballot security than others, for sure.) Beyond that, one lesson of 2000 is that it can be damn hard actually to get the ballots recounted. The rules for that vary a lot from state to state.

out of left field  Oct 15 · 09:40:17 PM

Righter in 2000?

HudsonValleyMark wrote:

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

What is your source for this?  How do you know that the results of exit polls in U.S. elections were more accurate in one year than another?  As far as I can tell, most observers assert such a thing because the official vote count compared to the exit polls comes up that way.  But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Unfortunately, many commenters on U.S. elections implicitly assume that the official tallies are always accurate, and therefore exit polls that diverge from the official count must be incorrect.  After all, if the official tallies are not correct, in some cases by a lot, that opens up a whole can of worms that many people would rather not get into.  

Given how U.S. elections have been run the past couple of decades, with the increasing use of easily hackable electronic voting machines and tabulators, the potential for corrupting the vote has certainly been there.  One way of detecting such corruption is to look at exit polls versus the official count and see if there are any revealing patterns.  

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.  If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.  The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.  But, the phenomenon of “red shift” has been noted in election after election.  This cannot be accidental, or a matter of unreliable polling.  

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.  I remember the confidence many activists had in how well Kerry was doing, and their utter shock when the official results came in.  Even by 2004, the course Bush had been following in invading Iraq and the like was already very controversial–it was not a given that he had anywhere near majority support for what his administration was doing.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 16 · 06:56:53 AM

I was trying to follow Julie’s lead

Frankly, I’ll be shocked if you can make a plausible case that the exit polls weren’t more accurate in 2000 than in 2004. But I’m happy to restate that: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts were generally smaller in 2000 than in 2004.

But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Actually, it isn’t, because we can compare both the exit polls and the official vote counts with other information sources. By way of modest example, Iagain invite you to consider Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania in 2004.

There’s no reason to assume a priori that either the exit polls or the official counts are correct. It’s likely that, in some sense, both are routinely wrong, although we don’t know a priori how wrong. That should be the starting point of analysis.

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.

I should believe this because you say so? Or you actually have some evidence?

If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.

You haven’t presented any facts for me to “deflect attention from.”

The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.

Malarkey.

(1) Circular reasoning. You haven’t demonstrated that any party ever has “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

(2) Semantic equivocation. If by “just unreliable” you mean “unbiased but inconsistent,” then your assertion is tautologically true — but irrelevant. If the exit polls are subject to bias, it is eminently plausible that the bias tends to be in one direction.

(3) Handwaving. You have barely addressed the facts about exit polls in one election; it’s wildly premature to generalize.

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.

It may not be impossible? That’s nice, but if that is your standard of proof, then obviously a rational discussion cannot proceed very far.

out of left field  Oct 16 · 07:50:20 PM

Re: Marlarkey, etc.

Hudson Valley Mark wrote:

(1) Circular reasoning. You haven’t demonstrated that any party ever has “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

I have not demonstrated such a thing, but Richard Charnin has.  

Oh, I forgot, you don’t like Mr. Charnin, in your opinion he produces “crap”.  Well, please show us where Mr. Charnin has gone wrong.  The link above references a fairly lengthy article, “1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.8-41.6% Average Democratic Margin”, in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.  Charnin is clear about his data sources and about the methodology he uses to come to his conclusions.  

Therefore, if he has messed up, you should be able to tell us why.  I am really interested in your conclusions, as this is an important issue and you have some very definite opinions about it.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 16 · 09:14:39 PM

you’re still demanding that I do all the work

If you can walk me through at least one argument in Charnin’s screed that you actually understand, take seriously, and are prepared to defend, then we might have some basis for discussion. Your unsupported assertion that Charnin demonstrated something has no more force than if you had linked to an article that “demonstrates” that the Twin Towers were sabotaged with thermite, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that climate change is a hoax.

I’m willing to discuss any of those propositions, but if you can’t even provide evidence that you actually believe them, there is no point in my trying to change your mind. Charnin was banned here years ago, but if you think he is some misunderstood prophet, why don’t you tell us all what we’re missing?

a fairly lengthy article… in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.

Facepalm. Why would we need a “fairly lengthy article” for that? We already knew that the exit polls don’t match the official counts. The claim to be supported is that any political party “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies.

So, can you cite any evidence of error in the official counts? Bear in mind that your current position on exit poll accuracy is that the 2004 New York estimate “may not be impossible.” If that is the strongest statement that you can muster, apparently you concede that the exit polls can’t be assumed to be accurate. Now what?

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage. But it’s flat-out nuts for me to try to guess what, if anything, you actually thought made sense. Or maybe you didn’t think any of it made sense, exactly, but it just sounded so darn smart. How can I know if you don’t tell me?

out of left field  Oct 16 · 09:51:52 PM

Here’s a walk-through

HudsonValleyMark wrote:

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage.

Here you go–from Charnin’s blog as of April, 2012, Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy.  In the quote, he is discussing how the 2004 National Exit Poll was “adjusted” to match the official vote results by changing various weightings of voter shares in novel ways:

Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

So how did Kerry lose?

How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

Note that Charnin is basing his argument on state and national exit poll data, as reported by the pollers themselves (Edison-Mitofsky).  The 12:22am exit poll was a preliminary result that was downloaded from a web site (the WAPO site, I believe) and contained data that had not been forced to match the official vote count.  Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy, which is why in previous comments I provided links instead of quoting everything I was referring to.  But apparently, you don’t want to bother with links.  I also thought you were conversant with Charnin’s basic analysis of presidential elections and exit polls, given your categorical put-down of same, but you just keep saying “you’re making me do all the work.”  

This will not do.  Richard Charnin has made a strong statistically based argument that analysis of unadjusted exit poll data indicates electoral fraud is going on in our elections. Is there something wrong with his methodology?  Is he making assumptions that are unwarranted? What is it that you object to about his work? Anything?  

HudsonValleyMark  

thanks for showing up

You haven’t done much to discuss my substance (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York), but I’m willing to discuss yours.

So, let’s see where Charnin goes wrong.

Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

No, he isn’t.

We’re not discussing “the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.” We can’t be, because we have no way of knowing that. What we know is how many people, on their exit poll questionnaires, said they had voted for Bush.

(Many of Charnin’s errors have this character of confusing exit polls with reality. Consider: “If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate)….” Guess what: unless we assume that the 2000 exit polls are accurate, there’s nothing “conservative” about assuming that Gore won by 4 million votes. I’m skipping over a bunch of technical issues.)

As a matter of logic, then, Charnin’s argument already has a gaping hole: He is assuming the accuracy of the “unweighted” exit poll results in order to argue for their accuracy. The argument isn’t exactly circular, because at least two kinds of “accuracy” are at issue: whether the realized sample is unbiased within random sampling error, and whether the responses are factual. Charnin is in trouble if the sample is “inaccurate” in either sense. The exit poll results in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and New York — which, among other problems, defy all pre-election expectations I’ve ever seen — stand as unrebutted evidence that the sample isn’t unbiased.

But the assumption that people accurately report past votes fails, too. In the 1989 General Social Survey, 53% of respondents reported having voted for George H. W. Bush and 45% for Mike Dukakis — not too far from the official count, by the way. In the next three GSS administrations, Bush’s reported vote share was much higher. In the 1993 GSS, Bush “won” by 70% to 29%. The most parsimonious explanation is that a lot of people misreported whom they voted for.

Moreover — as Charnin has known for years — the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.)

So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts.

I’ve presented two specific examples, but if you look at GSS and ANES data, you can see for yourself that present or past incumbents’reported vote shares generally do increase over time (although usually not as much as in the 1993 GSS).

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy

Yes, but the statistics are basically irrelevant, because Charnin’s assumptions are bogus. It’s logically possible that part of his argument somehow can be salvaged — but the apparent excess of Bush 2000 voters in the weighted 2004 exit poll results is what we would expect, given the general propensity I described above. The GSS and NES data are freely available for download, and in many cases can be analyzed via UC-Berkeley’sSurvey Documentation and Analysis archive.

out of left field  Oct 17 · 08:32:16 PM

Thanks, at last, for a serious answer.

I will be looking at the sources that you cite to see what I can learn.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 17 · 09:49:20 PM

y’know, all my answers have been serious

The fact that you find Charnin credible, and I don’t, doesn’t make your comments more serious than mine. But it’s one of those fundamental disconnects. If you find Charnin credible and I don’t, I suppose you will consider that you’re making an important point just by citing him, while I consider that you’re making no point at all. It’s more interesting to be talking about actual arguments, I think.

Lovepolitics2008 Oct 14 · 10:27:43 PM

Time to alert the international community?

I mean… this is ridiculous. The USA are like a banana republic. The national media won’t cover this abomination. Maybe it’s time we alert the international media to what’s happening in the USA. The shenanigans in Florida, Ohio, and God knows where else. It’s getting ridiculous and scary. The republicans are totally out of control.

If you live outside the USA, try to send a message to the journalists of your country who are covering american politics and ask them to do some digging.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 02:57:28 AM

so, Rove has the magic wand and wouldn’t share?

Sorry, that makes no sense.

rubyr  Oct 15 · 10:13:21 AM

if you choose to view it as a magic wand that’s

on you. The reality is quite a bit more chilling and dangerous. Why don’t you read a few books and articles about it. For instance the book I mentioned above, written by a very respected author or any of the many books on Karl Rove that you can get from your public library, Amazon or on your Nook. Anyone who does not view Karl Rove as a clear and present danger is just not paying attention.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 05:59:24 PM

stop hiding behind borrowed authority

I’ve read dozens of books and articles about it. Now what?

The question isn’t whether Karl Rove is “a clear and present danger.” The question seems to be whether Karl Rove can steal any presidential election he pleases, more or less by snapping his fingers, but decided to let 2008 go because he hates John McCain.

But if you don’t like that paraphrase of the question, I’m happy to hear the question in your own words. Only, make your own argument; don’t tell me to go read stuff and figure out what your argument is. You can cite sources to support your argument, but you have to make it first.

out of left field Oct 14 · 11:19:14 PM

Good diary, but…

I would recommend including a little of the story you linked to so your readers can get a better idea of what’s involved.  

Regarding your question:

Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans….Patiently awaiting answers…….

It’s called “red shift” and is definitely an indication that everything is not on the up and up in our elections.  I did a diary on the subject back in June, reporting on an important article on the subject by Bob Fitrakis in The Free Press web site.  You can do worse than to check it out.

tvdude  Oct 14 · 11:33:50 PM

Thanks for the tips…

Bob Fitrakis has been at the heart of this matter for some time…read your diary…excellent stuff!!

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 03:39:48 AM

the problem with exit polls…

is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30. And so on. Most of the largest discrepancies weren’t even in swing states.

Conceivably you believe that those projections were correct within sampling error. You’re not likely to convince neutral political observers. That’s a major reason why the argument hasn’t caught on: it’s a bad argument, and Bob Fitrakis should have known that for years.

out of left field  Oct 15 · 04:40:38 PM

Your thesis

if I understand it correctly, is that exit polls in general are unreliable indicators of the actual vote.  But the examples you give were all taken from an election that was almost certainly corrupt, in a big way.  

To repeat a segment of the article that inspired my diary:

Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

What is the probability of this happening? “One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion,” said Charnin….132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  He not only finds the exit polls trending well outside the margin of error in a shocking number of cases, he finds a bias towards one side that is really something.  

This cannot be explained by anything other than direct manipulation of vote totals.  If exit polls were just no good, we would expect the discrepancies to be all over the map–essentially random in a large study.  But Charnin finds anything but randomness.  Face it.  The fix is in.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 06:10:33 PM

you talked right past my point

The problem with exit polls is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30.

If the best you have to say about that is that the 2004 election was almost certainly corrupt, you are missing the point.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  

No, there we have a guy who has done crap, at length, for years. If you care to argue otherwise, step right up. Maybe you can start by discussing the four states I’ve mentioned. Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

out of left field  Oct 15 · 08:18:45 PM

Re: you talked right past my point

Are you saying that the exit poll results in Minnesota, NH and PA in 2004 were wrong, and therefore, exit polls cannot be relied upon?

Do you know for a fact that the official counts in those states were correct, and therefore the exit polls were wrong?

You say Charnin has “done crap for years”.  Show me some evidence please.  Where has he been incorrect?

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 16 · 05:23:11 AM

LOL

Yes, I understand, you’ll ask the questions around here. That is the hallmark of crap CT: the burden of proof is always on the skeptic.

I’ll give you another chance to answer the simple question that you ducked: Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

Welcome to Daily Kos, where extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you really believe, in any worthy sense of the word, that Charnin’s work supports your weirdly smug conclusion that “the fix is in,” then why not marshal an argument, instead of appealing to dubious authority?

I’ve encountered many fans of Charnin, but no one who can explain and defend his analyses in detail. Not that I care whether you defend Charnin’s analyses, per se: feel free to offer your own.

But if that is too ambitious, you might start by answering my question about the exit poll results.

out of left field  Oct 16 · 07:33:01 PM

Re: LOL

I do not know if the exit poll results you cite have problems or not.  But YOU make an awful lot of claims that you do not back up, while accusing other people of producing “crap”.  If you are going to make that sort of charge, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it.  So far all you have done is throw charges at Mr. Charnin’s work.  If you have some evidence for those charges, produce it in a comment or give us a link.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 16 · 07:57:52 PM

umm, why?

Dude, you’re apparently alleging massive election fraud in which leading Democrats are more or less complicit. I’m alleging that Richard Charnin’s work is bad. Which one of those is an extraordinary claim? Which of those even matters? Why do you expect me to do all the work? Are you even interested in this topic, or are you just yanking my chain?

Do you actually believe that massive fraud occurred in 2004? If so, for heaven’s sake, aren’t you going to say why?  Do you have something better than that it isn’t impossiblethat Kerry won New York by over 30 points? Talk about weak tea….

out of left field  Oct 16 · 08:34:17 PM

Re: umm, why?

You are going around in circles.  You allege that Richard Charnin’s work is bad.  Fine.  Tell us why.

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.  The work of Richard Charnin and others informs my belief.  If you cannot explain why you think his work is no good, you cannot address the issue.  (Hint: Follow the link.)

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 17 · 08:08:48 AM

see above, but, goalpost shift noted

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.

The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen. You don’t have to profess certainty — in fact, you probably shouldn’t — but you could at least state a non-trivial opinion.

Pardon my impatience, but I’ve watched people move the goalposts in this direction many, many times.

kainah Oct 15 · 02:45:04 AM

Want more reason to worry?

Read the new book called “Boss Rove” by Craig Ubgar which talks about the sleazy vote manipulation that has likely occurred under Rove’s tutelage in the past. I think there is real cause for concern which is also why I think it’s imperative that we ensure that PBO has too big a win margin the tamper with. But if, god forbid, that fails, we all have to be ready to fight like hell in the aftermath. No lying down and getting run over like in FL 2000.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 03:52:30 AM

what in that book are you discussing?

Some people seem to think that Unger made a strong case for SmarTech tampering in that book, but I couldn’t find the case.

reflectionsv37 Oct 15 · 03:28:14 AM

I developed software for 35 years…

and I wrote this diary back in 2006 that details a hypothetical way of programming a touch screen monitor voting program to push the vote to one party while simultaneously minimizing the possibility of being detected. It’s far more simple than most people imagine.

I think it will probably answer your question!

out of left field Oct 17 · 01:56:59 AM

Your 2006 diary is superb

A quote from it:

Allowing private corporations, who have a vested interest in the outcome of an election, who have openly stated their preferences for one political party over another, to develop and implement a voting system using such an easily manipulated tool as a computer is a grave threat to our Democracy.

And reflectionsv37 explains exactly why.  I urge everyone on this thread to go read it.

reflectionsv37  Oct 17 · 03:09:18 AM

Thanks for the compliment!

It didn’t get much attention at the time. I haven’t heard many complaints this election season about votes being switched, but if I start hearing it again, I’ll rework it and try to shorten it a little and repost it so others might get a chance to see it.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 15 · 03:33:33 AM

I don’t agree with the premise of your question

I get called paranoid, and a CT, but please answer one question for me and then I’ll calm down :  Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans….Patiently awaiting answers…….

I don’t agree that computer errors always favor the Republicans. Sometimes Democrats pick up votes when errors are corrected (as, apparently, in Palm Beach, although that election was nonpartisan on the ballot). Sometimes Republicans do (as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last year). Sometimes the errors occur in primaries (Pottawattamie County, Iowa). These were various kinds of errors; there is no evidence of fraud in any of them.

Susan Bucher is right to be concerned that her systems are unreliable and her vendor is, too. That isn’t a CT. Making claims of fact without raising a finger to support them — and telling people to Be Very Afraid, but nothing else — is exactly what a lot of us consider CT.

Fisticuffs Oct 15 · 04:54:18 AM

The fact that Bain OWNS the machines in Ohio

right now – Bain Capital owns the company that owns and has distributed voting machines for Ohio – the company’s president is a FORMER FUCKING CAMPAIGN MANAGER for ROMNEY – is HORRIFYING to me. The fact that the MSM has TOTALLY ignored this and won’t report on it before the election is fucking STAGGERING.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 21, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2014 Election : Why won’t the National Election Pool Release UNADJUSTED exit polls?

Richard Charnin
Nov.8, 2014

2014 Election: Why won’t the National Election Pool Release UNADJUSTED exit polls?

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

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

The analysis of 1988-2014 election anomalies has been proven beyond any doubt that Election Fraud is systemic. If the Democrats or the Republicans were interested in fair elections, election fraud would have been eliminated long ago.  This is apparent based on the historic overview and analysis of election fraud.

In 2012,  the National Election Pool (NEP)  came to realize that unadjusted polls were a clear indicator of fraud  so they just stopped polling in 19 states. And we only have  adjusted state and national exit polls, so that the ability to prove election fraud based on unadjusted exit polls and true vote analysis is reduced.

It’s not just the exit polls that are manipulated. Pre-election Registered Voter (RV) polls are reduced to a Likely Voter (LV) subset, eliminating many new, mostly Democratic voters, as noted by  Jonathan Simon: Vote Counts and Polls: An Insidious Feedback Loop

The pattern is repeated in every election cycle:  a) Registered Voter (RV) pre-election polls  are reduced to a Likely Voter (LV) subset (eliminate many new Democratic voters) and b) unadjusted exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote (4-5% red-shift to GOP).

In 2014, the Republicans won the House recorded vote by 52.3-46.6%. According to the final, adjusted National Exit poll, they won by 51.9-46.1%. The .01% difference in margin was not due to perfect polling of a fraud-free election. It was due to the standard procedure of matching the exit poll to a fraudulent recorded vote.

Final vote shares were calculated for all 2014 National Exit Poll categories. But the actual exit poll responses are adjusted to match the recorded vote. UNADJUSTED STATE AND NATIONAL EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE. But we never get to see the unadjusted polls until years later, if then.

Therefore, voters must demand to view the unadjusted exit polls (including polled precincts).  To paraphrase Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross: The unadjusted national exit polls are gold, but you don’t get them. They’re for closers (the corporate media).

2014 National House Exit Poll

Gender...Mix...Dem... Rep..Other Margin
Men......49.0% 41.0% 57.0% 2.0% 16.0%
Women....51.0% 51.0% 47.0% 2.0% 4.0%
Total..........46.1% 51.9% 2.0% 5.8%
Recorded.......46.6% 52.3% 1.1% 5.7%
Diff............0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 0.1%


The unadjusted national exit polls and the aggregate of state exit polls (adjusted only for state voting population) have closely matched the True Vote Model in all presidential elections since 1988. The True Vote Model has the Democratic margin at 53-41%; the unadjusted state and national exit polls are identical: 52-42%.

The Democrats won the 1988-2008 recorded vote by just 2% (48-46%). There is a consistent 8% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded vote. But we don’t have the unadjusted 2014 National Exit Poll. Based on 1988-2008 margins, 2014 would be expected to show a 50-48% unadjusted (true) Democratic margin- and eliminate the 4% red shift to the GOP.

 

This is an excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2014 in 2014 Elections, Election Myths

 

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

Comparing 2012 to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls

Comparing 2012 to 2008: Late Votes, Total Votes and 2008 Exit Polls

Richard Charnin
Dec.13, 2012

This is an update to the post Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16-million votes.

A table of 2012 late and total votes and corresponding 2008 votes and unadjusted exit polls has been added to the 2012 model. It reveals a pattern of intriguing similarities which strengthen the case that the 4-5% systemic election fraud factor reduced Obama’s True Vote margin by approximately 10-12 million.

The 2008 Election Model projected a 53.1% vote share for Obama and 365.3 expected EV; he had 52.9% and 365 EV. The model utilized Likely Voter (LV) polls which understated Obama’s True Vote share.

Anticipating the systemic 5% fraud factor, the 2012 True Vote Forecast Model included two projections: 1) the recorded vote based on Likely Voter polls (Obama had 51.6%) and 2) the True Vote based on estimates of returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares of returning and new voters. The recorded vote projection exactly matched Obama’s 332 EV. In the True Vote Model, he had 55.2% and 380 EV.

In 2008, Obama had 52.3% on Election Day and 52.87% of the total 131.1 million recorded votes. He had 59.2% of 10.16 million late votes. In 2012, Obama had 50.34% on Election Day and 51.03% of the total 129.13 million recorded votes. He had 58.0% of 11.68 million late votes. The 2.0% differential between Obama’s 2012 and 2008 late vote shares matches the spread between his 51.03% total share and his 52.87% share in 2008.

In 2008, Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) and 61.0% in the National Exit Poll (17,836). He also had 58.0% in the True Vote Model If the exit polls and the True Vote Model are accurate, then the 10.16 million Late Votes accurately represented the 2008 electorate. Obama’s 59.2% late vote share was right in the middle of the 58-61% exit poll range. In 2012, there were just 31 state exit polls. The unadjusted state and national polls have not been released.

Obama had a 56.1% two-party share in the 2012 post-election True Vote Model. It is likely that the 5% Fraud Factor resulted in his 51.0% recorded share.

Was 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 Late Vote by 57-39%, the same 18% margin as the unadjusted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the weighted Late Vote by 54-42%; the 12% margin matched the 56-44% two-party True Vote Model.

The 2012 unadjusted exit polls are unavailable. But it is reasonable to assume that Obama would have 56% in the aggregate poll (2% below his 2008 aggregate share) given the 2% difference between Obama’s 2008 and 2012 late vote shares.

2008/2012 correlation:
Late Vote: 0.84
Recorded Vote: 0.98
2008 Late Vote/Exit Poll: 0.74
Late % of Total Vote: 0.83

Florida
2008: 405,000 late votes, Obama 50.9% recorded, 51.6% late, 52.1% exit poll
2012: 166,000 late votes, 49.9-49.3% recorded on Election day;
57.8-41.2-1.0% late
More than 200,000 Florida voters were discouraged by long lines and left without voting – most were for Obama.

Ohio
2008: 500,000 late votes, 51.4% recorded, 54.0% late, 54.1% exit poll
2012: 228,000 late votes, 50.3-48.3% recorded on Election Day;
57.1-31.8-11.1% late

Virginia
2008: 249,000 late votes, 52.6% recorded, 65.4% late, 62.5% exit poll
2012: 160,000 late votes, 50.6-47.8% recorded on Election Day;
64.7-34.2-1.1% late

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

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 30, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,730 other followers