RSS

Tag Archives: johnson

SUMMARY VOTE SHARE/ ELECTORAL VOTE ANALYSIS

Richard Charnin
Dec.20, 2016

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

Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  She won California by 4.27 million, New York by 1.7 million and Illinois by 945,000 votes – a total of 6.9 million.  Her margins in these states were implausible.  Trump won the other 48 states by 4.1 million.

The 28 unadjusted state exit polls are implausible. Trump won the True Vote. He won Independents by 7.7% over Clinton. Independents outnumbered Democrats by 6.7%.

Unadjusted Exit Polls
1-Use Party-ID from the CNN exit poll (matched to reported vote).
2-Independent vote shares adjusted to match the adj. exit poll.

CNN Exit Poll (Reported Vote)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
65,719 62,890 306
48.2% 46.2% (total reported vote)
49.3% 45.2% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Unadjusted State Exit Polls (implausible)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
48.5% 44.8% 241
49.6% 43.6% 159 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 1 (use state-adjusted Gallup National Party-ID)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
47.3% 46.5% 279
48.1% 45.6% 197 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 2: Sensitivity Analysis (Gallup Party-ID)

Scenario 1: Undecided Voters to Trump: 50%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
45.1% 47.5% 306
45.5% 46.8% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 2: Undecided Voters to Trump: 60%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.7% 47.9% 313
45.0% 47.3% 231 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 3: Undecided Voters to Trump: 70%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.3% 48.3% 342
44.5% 47.8% 260 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

OHIO
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 38% 52% 8% 2%
Calc 100% 43.6% 52.1% 3.1% 1.3%
Reported 99.3% 43.6% 51.7% 3.2% 0.8%
Votes 5,496 2,394 2,841 174 46
    Margin 447 8.1%  
Exit Poll Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 50% 35% 8% 7%
Match 100% 47.0% 47.2% 3.1% 2.7%
Unadj.EP 100% 47.0% 47.1% 3.2% 2.7%
Votes 5,496 2,583 2,589 176 148
    Margin 5 0.1%
True Vote Gallup adj. Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 32.4% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 33.4% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 34.2% 38% 52% 8% 2%
TVM1 100.0% 43.9% 51.4% 3.4% 1.3%
95.1% 41.6% 46.7% 4.4% 2.4%
TVM 100% 43.6% 49.6% 4.0% 2.8%
Votes 5,496 2,396 2,729 220 152
    Margin 332 5.1%  
Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 20, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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

2016 Election Model: Stein vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Stein vs.Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

Richard Charnin
July 27, 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 Primary spread sheet

The 2016 Election Model  indicates that  Green Party candidate Jill Stein can win a fraud-free election, based on a) recent Party-ID surveys and b) primary exit poll vote shares of Independents and Democrats.

The model assumes that Stein is on the ballot in every state. Various scenarios are displayed given  Party-ID assumptions and corresponding vote shares. It is not a forecast.

Statistical  evidence  based on manipulated voter rolls (strip),  impossible exit poll discrepancies (flip) and Wikileaks DNC e-mails suggest that Sanders easily won the True Vote in the primaries. The election was stolen in every way imaginable. 

Base Case

The assumption is that Stein will win 45% of Independents, 35% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans.  This results in a 30.6% win  – and 318 electoral votes.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democratic, 35% Republican and 24% Independent.  In  the model, we assume the current 2016 split: 40% Independents, 32% Democratic and 28% Republicans. 

Click this link to view the Gallup poll trend in Party affiliation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculation Methodology

1-2016 state Party-ID: based on the change from 2014 National Party ID to 2016.
Example 2014 Illinois Party ID: from 47D-35R-18I  to 37D-28R-35I
2-State vote shares: apply estimated National shares to the state Party-ID  mix.
3-Electoral Vote summed for each candidate.

BASE CASE

Party-ID Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 45% 25% 10% 20%
Dem 32% 35% 50% 5% 10%
Repub 28% 5% 5% 75% 15%
Total 100% 30.6% 27.4% 26.6% 15.4%
Votes 129,106 39,506 35,375 34,342 19,882
Elect Vote 538 318 11 209 0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

What if Stein’s share of Democrats and Independents varies from the base case scenario?

The tables show Stein and Trump vote shares and corresponding margins for 25 scenarios: Stein gets 31-39% of Democrats and 40-50% of Independents. The Base Case is in the central cell of each table (Stein has 30.6%).

Stein wins 13 of the 15 scenarios.

Stein % Dem
Stein % 31.0% 33.0% 35.0% 37.0% 39.0%
of Ind Stein
50% 31.3% 32.0% 32.6% 33.2% 33.9%
45% 29.3% 30.0% 30.6% 31.2% 31.9%
40% 27.3% 28.0% 28.6% 29.2% 29.9%
Trump
50% 25.9% 25.2% 24.6% 24.0% 23.3%
45% 27.9% 27.2% 26.6% 26.0% 25.3%
40% 29.9% 29.2% 28.6% 28.0% 27.3%
Stein Margin
50% 5.4% 6.7% 8.0% 9.3% 10.6%
45% 1.4% 2.7% 4.0% 5.3% 6.6%
40% -2.6% -1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6%
Stein Vote Margin (000)
50% 7,023 8,676 10,328 11,981 13,634
45% 1,859 3,512 5,164 6,817 8,469
40% -3,305 -1,653 0 1,653 3,305

 

Jill Stein Polling Sensitivity analysis

Assuming Independents are 40% of the electorate, then for Jill Stein to have

–  5%  (implausible), she needs 12% of Independents and 0% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  10% (conservative), she needs 17% of Independents and 5% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  20% (plausible), she needs 35% of Independents and 10% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  30% (optimistic), she needs 52% of Independents and 15% of Democrats and Republicans.

In the tables, Independents range from 10-40%

A Stein share of IND greater than 100% or less than zero is impossible (na)

Stein Poll 30%
Stein%                               10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein%  of IND
0% na na 100.0% 75.0%
5% na na 88.3% 67.5%
10% na na 76.7% 60.0%
15% na na 65.0% 52.5%
Stein Poll 20%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein % of IND
0% na na 66.7% 50.0%
5% na na 55.0% 42.5%
10% na 60.0% 43.3% 35.0%
15% 65.0% 40.0% 31.7% 27.5%
Stein Poll 10%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein% IND
0% na 50.0% 33.3% 25.0%
5% 55.0% 30.0% 21.7% 17.5%
10% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
15% na na na 2.5%
Stein Poll 5%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein% IND
0% 50.0% 25.0% 16.7% 12.5%
5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
10% na na na na
15% na na na na

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=1996781143&format=image

 

 
43 Comments

Posted by on July 27, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis