Tag Archives: fraud

Maryland 2014 Gov Election Fraud? Cumulative Vote shares, Early, Election Day and Late Vote Anomalies

Maryland 2014 Gov Election Fraud? Cumulative Vote shares, Early, Election Day and Late Vote Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Feb.27, 2015
Updated: Jan. 18, 2016

Look inside the books:
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

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis is a recent addition to the toolkit of models for analyzing election fraud. Vote shares in smaller GOP rural precincts heavily favor the Republican, but there is a counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares in larger (presumably urban Democratic) precincts. One would intuitively expect a slight Democratic increase in slope.

In the Maryland 2014 Governor election, Hogan (R) defeated Brown (D) by 65,000 votes (51.7-47.2%). But Brown won 301,000 early and 83,000 late votes (absentee and provisional ballots) by 53.9-44.5%. Hogan led Election Day (1,319,000 votes) by 52.9-45.3%. Election Day voting is on machines; early and late votes use paper ballots.

At the 10% mark, Brown had 62.8 in the ten largest counties (declining to 55.1%) and 29.4% in the other 14 (an increase from 25.2%), confirming that the GOP does not focus on stealing votes in small, rural, heavily GOP counties.

The CVS trend moved to the GOP in each of the following elections
-South Dakota:

Calculating cumulative vote shares (CVS):
1- County precinct votes are sorted in ascending order.
2- The total vote in each precinct is added to the cumulative total.
3- Cumulative vote shares are calculated.
4- Cumulative vote shares (Y) and total votes (X) are displayed graphically.

A PhD study confirms the Cumulative Vote Share analysis:
Precinct Size Matters:­The Large Precinct Bias in US Presidential Elections- G.F.Webb (Vanderbilt University, Nashville,TN) Examination of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.The large precinct bias is analyzed with respect to voter heterogeneity and voter inconvenience as precinct size increases. The analysis shows that voter inconvenience is a significant factor in election outcomes in certain states, and may significantly disadvantage Democratic candidates.

CVS confirms the results of other major election fraud indicators:
1) True Vote Model (TVM): Based on plausible returning voters and current election exit poll vote shares.

2) State and National Exit Polls: Discrepancies beyond the margin of error between unadjusted exit polls and the recorded vote. All exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It is standard procedure.

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:


Posted by on February 27, 2015 in 2014 Elections


Tags: , , , , ,

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.14, 2014
Updated: Sept.28, 2015

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

For the first time since 2000, I did not plan on forecasting the 2014 election or run a post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed; the media and congress refuse to investigate. They continue to promote the myth that the recorded vote is the True Vote and Election Fraud does not exist.

But I decided to analyze a few close, disputed elections.

In the 2014 FL Governor election, Scott(R) defeated Crist(D) by 64,145 votes out of 5.95 million cast (48.1-47.1%). Third-party candidates had 4.8%.

In 2010, Scott defeated Sink(D) by 62,000 votes (49.6- 48.4%). Sink won the unadjusted exit poll (3,150 respondents): 50.8-45.4-3.8%. The margin of error was 2%.

The fact that the 2014 2-party share exactly matched 2010 is a red flag by itself. Crist won the 2-party True Vote by 52.0-48.0%.

Cumulative Vote Share analysis in the largest counties indicated the usual pattern of increasing GOP vote shares in larger (generally Democratic) precincts:

The key to understanding that elections are rigged is to take a close look at the exit polls. All exit poll crosstabs must be adjusted in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote. In the “How did you Vote in the Last Election” question, there are two sets of adjustments: a) how returning voters from the prior election voted and b) how returning and new voters in the current election voted. Generally, the most flagrant adjustment is made to the percentages of how they voted in the prior election.

Since unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, we only have the adjusted published polls. The pattern never changes: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure. The pollsters claim the matching is to correct polling error. Pollsters and media pundits want the public to believe the myth: recorded vote count is pristine and there is zero fraud. But there is no longer any doubt. Election fraud is pervasive and systemic.

The 2014FLGov spreadsheet contains the following worksheets:
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2010 Florida Exit Poll (‘2010 FL EP’)
– 2014 Florida Exit Poll (‘2014 FL EP’)
– 2014 FL County Vote vs. 2010 (“Counties’)
– 2014 True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)
– 2014 Florida Cumulative Vote Shares

Cumulative Vote Share analysis shows that Scott gained vote share going from small to large precincts in virtually all counties. This is counter-intuitive. The largest precincts are generally in Urban areas which are heavily Democratic.

................ Crist cumulative precinct vote shares
County..........Votes...25.% 50.% 75.% 100% % Chg VoteChg

Brevard.........207,638 45.6 44.2 44.5 43.8 -1.8 -3,737
Broward.........457,344 71.8 71.0 71.0 69.7 -2.1 -9,604
Dade............509,738 60.9 60.7 60.4 59.8 -1.1 -5,607
Duval...........257,773 56.0 46.5 45.1 43.3 -12.7 -32,737
Hillsborough....350,022 57.4 55.7 54.1 51.5 -5.9 -20,651

Lee.............201,416 45.2 43.1 41.6 39.4 -5.8 -11,682
Marion..........112,571 45.9 44.2 41.9 41.2 -4.7 -5,291
Orange..........292,584 64.6 60.1 58.6 56.2 -8.4 -24,577
Palm Beach......407,070 61.7 62.4 61.9 60.6 -1.1 -4,478
Pinellas........328,201 61.2 58.9 56.7 56.0 -5.2 -17,066

Polk............177,609 48.6 47.4 46.4 44.7 -3.9 -6,927
Volusia.........165,064 51.2 51.8 49.4 48.1 -3.1 -5,117

Total.........3,467,030 58.7 56.8 55.8 54.4 -4.3 -147,475

County CVS graphs

2014 NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of crosstabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.6% of the recorded vote because it was forced to match the vote. The exit poll margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of a 0.6% deviation is close to zero. The deviation illustrates that the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure – and unscientific. It’s no different then a serial thief daring the police to stop him. But they never do even though they have the statistical evidence of fraud and a signed confession.

Florida 2010 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Scott won by 49.6-48.4%, a 62,000 vote margin. But Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 283,000 votes (50.8-45.4%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy). There were 3,150 exit poll respondents and a 2.3% poll margin of error. Sink had a 99% win probability. But the poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

Just as in presidential election exit polls, the returning 2008 voter percentages were implausible. In the ’Voted in 2010′ crosstab, 47% of 2010 voters were returning Obama voters and 47% were returning McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida 2008 unadjusted exit poll by 6% So how does one explain the equal 47% mix of returning voters? This is the standard ‘tell’: the mix is adjusted to maximize the Republican vote and minimize the Democratic vote. The mix and the vote shares were changed to reflect the 2008 unadjusted exit poll.
Sink is the winner of the True vote by 50.8-45.4%

2010 Unadjusted Exit Poll
................Sink Scott Other
Respondents.....1600 1431 119
Poll Share......50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Poll Vote.......2683 2400 200

2010 True Vote
2008...........Vote Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........989 49.7% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........848 42.6% 7% 87% 2%
Other...........220 6.0% 53% 44% 3%
DNV..............34 1.7% 53.0% 44.0% 3%
True Vote.......1991
Respondents....1991 100% 50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Votes...................5282 2683 2399 200
Margin 195

2010 Exit Poll (adjusted to match recorded vote)
2008............Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........47% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........47% 11% 87% 2%
Other............3% 31% 67% 2%
DNV..............3% 31% 67% 2%
Total..........100% 48.4% 49.6% 2.0%
Votes.................. 2556 2620 106
Margin -64

Florida 2014 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
The How Voted in 2010 crosstab was not listed, but we have the True Vote model. The returning voter mix was changed to reflect the 2010 unadjusted exit poll. Crist is the winner of the True vote by 52-48%.

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

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

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

There were nearly 500,000 more voters in 2014 than 2010. Presumably, this increase in turnout would be expected to help Crist. As mentioned, Sink won the True Vote in 2010. But Scott’s 2014 margin increased by 5,000 votes. This is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The model data was updated for 2014 using 2010 returning and new voters. The assumptions for the base case scenario:
1) Sink had a 52.2% True Vote share in 2010
2) In 2014, there was a 93% turnout of living 2010 voters
3) Crist had 92.5% of returning Sink voters
4) Crist had 6.9% of returning Scott voters
5) Crist had 54% of new voters

In the Base Case scenario, Crist had a 52.0% share and won by 224,000 votes. The Sensitivity analysis shows Crist’s total vote share and margins over a range of 18 scenarios. He won 17.

1988-2008 Presidential Elections
A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model

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

Model: Obama 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 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV


Tags: , , , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis