Richard Charnin
Jan.1, 2017
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
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
Humboldt is the gift that keeps on giving. It is the only county in the U.S. which uses an Open Source System (TEVS) to count and audit votes. The system was installed in 2006.
In the CA primary, Bernie Sanders had his highest share (71%) in Humboldt.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/bernie-landslide-in-ca-humboldt-cty-open-source-system/
In the 2016 presidential election, Jill Stein’s 6.1% Humboldt share was her highest in the state – just like it was for Bernie. Clinton’s 56% share in Humboldt ranked #20 of 58 California counties.
Stein’s average in the 19 counties was 2.3%. Clinton averaged 68.0%. So how come Stein did 4% better in Humboldt than she did in the other 19 liberal counties? And Clinton did 12% worse?
Did Jill Stein actually have an approximate 6% True vote in liberal CA? Did she have 4% nationally? Who believes she had just 1%? Just asking.
Could it be that fraud was prevented in Humboldt? Were nearly 2/3 of Stein’s votes blue-shifted to Clinton? Was Clinton’s 61% CA share inflated by at least 4%? Note that 4% of 14 million CA votes is 560,000. That’s a 1.2 million difference in vote margin. She won the national recorded vote by 2.8 million.
BUT THE RECORDED VOTE IS NEVER EQUAL TO THE TRUE VOTE.
In 2008-2012, Obama did 2.58% better in Humboldt than he did in the state. This is to be expected. But in 2016, Clinton did 1.75% worse in Humboldt while her 4.26% increase over Obama in CA represents a 1.2 million increase in vote margin. This is counter-intuitive. How did Clinton get all those votes? Was she really that popular? Or was her vote padded?
There is always election fraud. But in Humboldt, we can assume that the recorded vote is the True Vote due to its near foolproof Open Source system. There is no reason to believe Clinton’s recorded CA vote is legitimate.
Humboldt Democratic 2-party share
1988-2004 Before TEVS: 57.2%
2008-2016 After TEVS: 64.6%
California Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 60.21% 36.46% 3.33%
2012 60.24% 37.12% 2.64%
2016 61.73% 31.62% 6.66% HRC margin 7% over Obama?
Humboldt Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 62.05% 33.95%.4.00%
2012 59.68% 32.61% 7.72%
2016 56.04% 31.01% 12.95% HRC loses 3.64% vs Trump 1.60%
Democratic 2-party Presidential share
……CA….Humboldt..Diff
2008 62.28% 64.64% 2.36%
2012 61.87% 64.67% 2.80%
2016 66.13% 64.37% -1.75% HRC gains 4.26% over Obama?
…………………. Stein Clinton
1 San Francisco.. 2.4% 85.0%
2 Alameda……… 2.7 78.7
3 Marin…………..2.2 78.1
4 San Mateo……..1.6 75.7
5 Santa Cruz……..3.5 73.9
6 Santa Clara…….1.8 72.7
7 Los Angeles……2.2 71.8
8 Sonoma……….. 3.2 69.4
9 Contra Costa…..1.9 68.5
10 Imperial……….1.6 67.9
11 Monterey………2.1 66.8
12 Yolo…………….2.2 66.7
13 Napa……………2.1 63.9
14 Solano………….1.7 61.6
15 Santa Barbara ..2.1 60.6
16 Mendocino…….5.6 58.9
17 Sacramento….. 1.8 58.3
18 San Benito……. 1.7 57.1
19 San Diego………1.8 56.3
20 Humboldt……..6.2 56.0
View this spreadsheet of 58 county votes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1462588532
Richard Charnin's Blog 