RSS

Tag Archives: mathematical proof of election fraud

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 
LINKS TO POSTS

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. The 7094 IBM mainframe  was 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. As manager of software development in Investment Banking  at Merrill Lynch on Wall Street . I used FORTRAN to develop financial models.

In the late 1970s, personal computers were considered as toys- until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden,  one could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. Lotus 1-2-3 had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately converted  FORTRAN financial programs to spreadsheets  with graphics capabilities. As a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations I switched to Excel in 1995 . Excel was used 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

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

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

                                           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 by 61-37% (a 30 million vote margin). He won the  State Exit Poll aggregate 58-40% (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

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

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

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
89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
Share of 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
                    Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Kerry share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
returning Bush 2000 voters   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%
Advertisements
 

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: , , , , , , , ,

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2014
Updated Sept.30, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
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 Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and another million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there were at most 47.5 million returning Bush 2000 voters. The National Exit poll indicated that 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. The pollsters had to create at least 5 million phantom Bush voters. Of course, this made no sense. But who questioned it? Who even knew about it? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
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

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.

In 2010, Walker won by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. in 2012, he won the recall by 171,105 votes with 53.1%. But the True Vote Model (TVM) showed that he needed 23% of Obama returning voters to match the recorded vote. That is extremely implausible – and a red flag. It’s further evidence that Barrett won the election. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/the-walker-recall-true-vote-model-implausible-vote-shares-required-to-match-the-vote/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=t4pqdOMFhfNwaIq8ELOAg_w#gid=32

2014 Wisconsin Governor
Walker won with a 52.9% share. In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll showed that returning 2012 Barrett voters comprised 35% of 2014 voters compared to 50% for returning Walker voters. The 15% spread is implausible. Compare it to Walker’s 7% recorded 2012 margin and Barrett’s estimated 6% True Vote margin (a whopping 21% discrepancy).Assuming a feasible Barrett 45/Walker 41% returning voter mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%.

In the “How Voted in 2012” crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). How many of the missing 14% voted for Burke? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=2079407084

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

 

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

Nate Silver and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov. 17, 2014

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

Once again, Nate Silver misdirects his readers in reviewing the 2014 elections. He claims that the polls were biased to the Democrats. He never considers that the polls were close to the true vote but that the vote counts were rigged. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Nate Silver never discusses Election Fraud, even though it has been proven systemic. I pointed this a few years ago in a reply to his post on why we should not believe exit polls. His knowledge of exit polls was (and apparently still is) non-existent. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

As usual Nate cites polling “bias”. But not a word about the fact that early pre-election polls include all registered voters (RVs). As we move toward Election Day, the polls are transformed to the subset of Likely Voters (LVs) – with the effect of reducing projected Democratic turnout and vote share.

The true bias is that pollsters skew the projections in order to match the expected fraudulent recorded vote. Nate Silver never considers that the RV polls are usually close to the truth – but that the LV polls are biased against the Democrats. So it’s just the opposite from Nate’s view. He believes the official vote counts are accurate, but researchers who analyze the historical record see a consistent 4-5% “red shift” to the GOP. It is absolute proof that the recorded vote counts are fraudulent and biased for the Republicans. http://electiondefensealliance.org/?q=voter_cutoff_model

Nate never discusses the fact that exit polls are always forced to match the bogus recorded vote. The pollsters admit that it is standard operating procedure. Their rationale is that the polls must always be wrong since they deviate so greatly from the recorded vote. Of course we never get to see the unadjusted exit polls until years later, if then. The 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls showed that the Democrats won by an average of 52-42%. But the recorded vote had them winning by just 48-46%
I just posted the True Vote model for the Wisconsin and Florida governor races. Both races were stolen in 2014- just like they were in 2010 and the 2012 Walker recall. .

In the 2010 Florida Governor election, the unadjusted exit poll and the True Vote Model indicated that Sink won by 5%, yet Scott won the recorded vote by 1%. In 2014, Scott won again. The 2-party vote shares were identical! Scott had 50.59% in 2010 and 50.58% in 2014! A coincidence? Hardly.The Florida 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor election, a True Vote analysis indicates that Walker stole the election, just like the recall in 2012. View the True Vote analysis: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

The easiest way to understand that our elections are fraudulent is to look at the 2004 presidential election. According to the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (as posted on major media sites), there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 2004 electorate) and 37% returning Gore voters. Recall that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. Gore won the unadjusted exit polls by 50-45% (he actually won the True Vote by 3-5 million).

But Bush had only 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return. Therefore, there were at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush voters. The exit pollsters had to adjust the unadjusted, pristine National Exit poll which showed Kerry a 52-47% winner to make Bush a 51-48% winner. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the recorded vote. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/fixing-the-exit-polls-to-match-the-policy/

And finally, here is the ultimate proof of systemic election fraud. In the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the polls by 52-42%, exactly matching my True Vote Model. But they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. Of the 274 exit polls 135 exceeded the margin of error, 131 in favor of the Republican. The probability P of that discrepancy is E-116 or
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Take anything from Nate Silver with a BIG GRAIN OF SALT. He never mentions PROVEN ELECTION FRAUD . And don’t forget that he had the gall to rank famous pollster Zogby dead last in his evaluation of pollsters a number of years back while ranking dedicated GOP pollsters at the top.

I have written several open-letter posts for Nate. He has not responded to any.

1. An Open Letter to Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
2. An Open Letter to Nate Silver (Part 2) http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
3.Twenty-five Questions for Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/TwentySilver.htm
4.A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/
5. Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings http://richardcharnin.com/SilverRankings.htm

The bottom line: Nate works for the major corporate media which is not interested in divulging why pre-election and exit pollsters adjust the polls to match fraudulent vote counts. They will never plead guilty.

This is a summary of my track record in forecasting the 1988-2012 presidential elections, unadjusted exit polls and True Vote Models. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 17, 2014 in Election Myths, Media, Rebuttals

 

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

1 The exit poll margin of error is not a function of
a) sample-size, b) 2-party poll share, c) national population size

2 In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the recorded vote 48-46%. They won both the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by
a) 50-46%, b) 51-45%, c) 52-41%

3 In 2004 the percentage of living Bush 2000 voters required to match the recorded vote was
a) 96%, b) 98%, c) 110%

4 In 2000 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 2, b) 4, c) 6 million

5 In 2008, Obama won by 52.9-45.6%. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by
a) 53-45%, b) 58-40%, c) 61-37%

6 In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis by 7 million votes (53.4-45.6%). Dukakis won the National Exit Poll by
a) 49.9-49.1%, b) 50.7-48.3%, c) 51.0-48.0%

7 In 1988 the approximate number of uncounted votes was
a) 6, b) 9, c) 11 million

8 Of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008, 135 exceeded the margin of error (14 expected). How many moved in favor of the GOP?
a) 85, b) 105, c) 131

9 Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004, returning Nader voters were 5-1 for Kerry, new voters 3-2 for Kerry. In order for Bush to win, he must have won
a) 30% of returning Gore voters, b) 90% of returning Bush voters, c) both (a) and (b).

10 In 2008 Obama won 58% of the state exit poll aggregate. Given it was his True Vote, he had how many Electoral Votes?
a) 365, b) 395, c) 420

11 What is the probability that 131 of 274 state exit polls from 1988-2008 would red-shift to the GOP beyond the margin of error?
a) 1 in 1 million, b) 1 in 1 trillion, c) 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (E-116)

12 In 2000 12 states flipped from Gore in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote. Gore would have won the election if he had won
a) 1, b) 2, c) 3 of the 12 states

13 In 1988 24 states had exit polls (2/3 of the total recorded vote). Dukakis won the state polls by
a) 50-49%, b) 51-48%, c) 52-47%

14 Exit polls are always adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure and
a) reported by the corporate media, b) noted by academia, c) statistical proof of election fraud

15 Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 47 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is proof that
a) Bush stole the 2004 election, b) it was a clerical error, c) 6 million Bush votes were not recorded in 2000.

16 In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes (48.4-47.9%). He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.8-44.4% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, indicating that
a) the state exit poll aggregate was outside the margin of error, b) the National poll was within the margin of error, c) the election was stolen, d) all

17 Corporate media websites show that Bush won the 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51-48%, matching the recorded vote. But the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won by 51.0-47.6% (7064-6414 respondents). The discrepancy is proof that
a) the poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, b) Bush stole the election, c) both, d) neither

18 The pervasive difference between the exit polls and the recorded vote in every election is due to
a) inexperienced pollsters, b) Republican reluctance to be polled, c) systemic election fraud

19 In 1992 Clinton defeated Bush by 43-37.5% (Perot had 19.5%). Clinton won the unadjusted National exit poll by 48-32-20%. Bush needed 119% turnout of returning 1988 Bush voters to match the recorded vote. These anomalies were due to
a) bad polling, b) Bush voters refused to be polled, c) Bush tried but failed to steal the election.

20 Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for gauging the effects of
a) various turnout assumptions, b) various vote share assumptions, c) both, d) neither

21 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for
a) predicting the recorded vote, b) electoral vote, c) probability of winning the electoral vote.

22 The expected electoral vote is based on
a) state win probabilities, b) state electoral votes, c) both, d) neither

23 To match the recorded vote, which exit poll crosstab weights and shares are adjusted?
a) when decided, b) how voted in prior election, c) party ID, d) gender, e) education, f) income, g) all

24 In 2004 Bush’s final pre-election approval rating was 48%, but it was 53% in the adjusted National Exit Poll. The discrepancy was due to
a) late change in approval, b) different polls, c) forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

25 The True Vote Model is designed to calculate the fraud-free vote. The TVM utilizes final exit poll shares but estimates returning voters based on the prior election
a) recorded vote, b) votes cast, c) unadjusted exit poll, d) true vote, e) all

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/true-vote-models/

1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 6a 7c 8c 9c 10c 11c 12a 13c 14c 15a 16c 17c 18c 19c 20c 21c 22c 23g 24c 25e

 

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

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
August 2, 2013
Updated: Aug. 5, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The 122 JFK witness deaths (78 ruled unnatural) are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls are from the six elections in 1988-2008. There are numerous data anomalies in the accumulated totals in both.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, given the number of JFK-related witnesses.

We assume the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. The first step is to record witness and mortality rate data in a spreadsheet. A mathematical analysis determines if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation. If the resulting probabilities go to zero, we reject the null hypothesis; we have proved systemic election fraud and a JFK conspiracy.

The data parameters are limited in scope.
– JFK: witness universe, unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate
– Election Fraud: state elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities based on the number of…
– JFK: unnatural deaths vs. expected number based on mortality statistics.
– Election Fraud: exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected number.

I posted the following analysis on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His response was typical disinformation; he wrote that I am reluctant to have the analysis peer-reviewed. But no one has ever come forth to refute the election fraud or JFK analysis. The work has been available on spreadsheets to everyone with Internet access for years. It has been cited in Hit List by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, Crossfire by Jim Marrs and Presidential Puppetry by Andrew Kreig.

McAdams is apparently incapable of doing a peer-review himself. I suggested that he ask the math or political science professors at Marquette University but he has not done so. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud
We calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 unadjusted exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote shares to determine the number of polls (n) in which the margin of error (MoE) was exceeded. We then calculate the probability.

The MoE is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the calculated 2.50% MoE and a 30% (0.75) cluster factor results in a 3.25% MoE.

In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the MoE was exceeded in 135 of the 274 exit polls, 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, we would expect that the MoE would be exceeded in 14 polls.

The probability that the MoE would be exceeded in 131 of 274 exit polls in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO. But what if the cluster factor is higher than 30%? It would increase the MoE; therefore, the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

In the sensitivity analysis, we calculate probabilities for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is the 30% cluster factor (a total 3.60% average MoE). The exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of the 274 elections. The probability P= E-83 = 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 001

Even assuming an impossible 200% cluster factor, the resulting 8.31% MoE was exceeded in 29 elections – a 1 in 10,000 probability. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=43

If the six elections were fair, we would expect the MoE to be exceeded in approximately 14 of 274 exit polls. The margin of error scenarios all show that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of the red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive simulaton analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. I created an exit poll response optimization model which confirmed the USCV simuation: http://www.richardcharnin.com/ExitPollResponseOptimization.htm

JFK Assassination Witnesses

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy. But an approximate number (1400+) was knowable.

Approximately 67 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously. Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) approximately 600 witnesses were called to testify; 37 died suspiciously. Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.
We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown causes. The probability is E-62 assuming the average weighted JFK unnatural mortality rate (0.000247). It is E-41 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000822). But many suicides and accidents were actually homicides (the number of official unnatural deaths far exceeded the statistical expectation).

The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios.

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 84 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 100 trillion.

Average 1964-78 Homicide rate: 0.000084
Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 80 Homicides for N witnesses (1964-78)
N….Probability

1400 1.68E-100
2000 1.94E-88

3000 6.70E-75
3500 8.07E-70
4000 1.87E-65
4500 1.23E-61
5000 2.99E-58

5500 3.25E-55
6000 1.82E-52
6500 5.85E-50
7000 1.17E-47
7500 1.55E-45

8000 1.44E-43
10000 6.48E-37
15000 1.42E-25
20000 2.52E-18
25000 4.17E-13 (1 in 2,396,168,995,675)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 2, 2013 in Election Myths, JFK

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis