RSS

Tag Archives: Maryland 2014 governor

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
-Florida: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/2014-florida-governor-election-fraud-cumulative-precinct-vote-shares/
-Wisconsin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/
-South Dakota: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/south-dakota-2014-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

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.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

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. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-exit-poll-smoking-gun-how-did-you-vote-in-the-last-election/

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. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:








Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 27, 2015 in 2014 Elections

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis