RSS

Tag Archives: National Election Pool

Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders, and then she rigged the presidential.

Richard Charnin
June 23, 2018

Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders-  and then she rigged the presidential. The MSM was in the tank for HRC.  In the presidential election, Clinton’s pre-election and unadjusted exit poll vote shares were inflated in anticipation of the fraud.

http://projectcensored.org/clintonistasdnc-illegally-stole-democratic-primaries-bernie-sanders/

“Finally, almost all election ballots are counted by computers and cannot be verified by the public. Apart from being non-transparent, this method of counting ballots is also problematic because electronic voting machines can easily be hacked. Essentially, Clintonista computer hackers could have flipped a minimum number of votes spread over a maximum number of polling stations by inserting a malicious code or algorithm into the voting tabulation software. As a result, this code would allow the final number of votes to “remain random in a way that would avoid detection by election fraud analysis tools.”

Suspiciously, multiple studies show that across all primary states, Clinton performed best in counties with electronic voting machines that didn’t leave a paper trail. https://www.theepochtimes.com/voting-machines-in-16-states-tied-to-george-soros-ally_2176907.html

Additionally, Election Justice USA found that the computer counts differed widely from the exit poll projections, but only for the Democratic Party primaries. According to election analyst Richard Charnin, Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Charnin reported that the probability of this occurring is 1 in 77 billion, which raises the strong possibility of election fraud. Yet, almost no discrepancies were found in the data for the Republican Party primaries. This is particularly remarkable, because the exit polls were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies for both the parties. So, this evidence suggests that the computer counts were only accurate for the Republican Party, while the computer counts for the Democratic Party primaries remain largely unverified.

The exit polls for the Democratic primaries were conducted by Edison Research, which is the exclusive provider of exit polls to the National Election Pool (NEP), which includes ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press. The National Election Pool has a policy that exit pollsters must adjust and force all state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote count, as if the computerized votes are always correct and as if there is no fraud!”

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/23743/

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote: Polling Anomalies, Democratic Defections, Independents and Late Undecided Voters
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 Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 

Advertisements
 
 

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

Why the 2016 pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and recorded vote are all wrong

Richard Charnin
Dec.30, 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

The 2016 election was different in kind from prior elections; the Democrat was the establishment candidate. It was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the primaries were stolen from Bernie Sanders by the DNC which colluded with the media.

Some analysts claim that the 2016 unadjusted state exit polls prove that the election was rigged for Trump. But just because the polls were excellent indicators of the True Vote in the past does not prove that they were accurate in 2016. 

Are we supposed to believe that the MSM would not rig the unadjusted exit polls to match the rigged  pre-election polls  to make it appear that Clinton was the winner?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0
http://www.inquisitr.com/3692040/2016-presidential-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose/

Exit pollsters at  Edison Research never reveal the location of precincts, votes and survey results. The only way to prove that the unadjusted exit polls are correct (and the published results bogus) is 1) to reveal the complete exit poll timeline and the data for all precincts polled and 2) a True Vote analysis based on historical and current independent data.

True Vote analysis indicates that Trump won the popular and electoral vote and that pre-election and exit polls were rigged for Clinton by inflating Democratic Party-ID. True Vote Models were based on a) national Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation and b) returning 2012 voters.

As usual, state and national exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. This was the first election in which the media discussed election fraud – but avoided the obvious U.S. suspects from prior elections and the rigged voting machines, illegal and disenfranchised voters. Now that the MSM finally admits election fraud, they blame it on the Russians! And don’t report the proven fact that the primary was rigged for Clinton.

Party-ID
Nine Pre-election polls (average): 28.8 Ind – 38.7 Dem- 31.9 Rep.
Final National Exit Poll (CNN): 31 Ind – 36 Dem – 33 Rep.
Gallup national voter affiliation survey: 40 Ind -32 Dem -28 Rep. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=505041111

Nine Pre-election polls 
Clinton won the average: 45.8-43.3%
Trump won the average Gallup-adjusted poll: 44.4-42.9%
Trump won Independents: 43.6-33.8%

Final  National Exit Poll (forced to match the Recorded Vote)
Clinton won the reported vote: 48.2-46.2%.
Clinton won the National Exit Poll: 47.7-46.2%.
Trump won Independents by just 46-42% – a 5.8% discrepancy from the pre-election polls which he led by 9.8%. This anomaly is additional evidence that Trump won the True Vote.

Unadjusted exit polls (28 states)
Clinton won the polls: 49.6-43.6%
Clinton won the corresponding recorded vote: 49.3-45.2%

States not exit polled
Trump won: 50.4-43.7%

True Vote
Trump led the True Vote Model (three scenarios of his share of late undecided voters)
– Scenario I:  47.5-45.1%, 306 EV (50% undecided)
– Scenario II: 47.9-44.7%, 321 EV (60% undecided)
– Scenario III: 48.3-44.3%, 351 EV (70% undecided)

The True Vote Model analysis based on a plausible number of returning voters from the prior election  confirmed the three scenarios: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/university-of-virginia-study-20-of-trump-voters-were-former-obama-voters/

The National Election Pool of six media giants funds exit pollster Edison Research. The published results are always forced to match the recorded vote which implies zero election fraud. But there is always election fraud.  Historically, unadjusted state and national exit polls always favored the Democratic candidate, but there was  a RED shift from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the recorded vote.

The True Vote Model indicates that the 1988-2008 unadjusted exit polls were accurate.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 30, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

The True Vote Model: A Mathematical Formulation

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2013

According to the adjusted 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls, there were millions more returning Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 voters from the previous election than were still living – a mathematical impossibility and proof of election fraud beyond any doubt.

It’s obvious that there must be fewer returning voters than the number who voted in the prior election. Approximately 5% of voters pass in the four years between elections. ALL exit polls are adjusted (forced) to match the recorded vote. It’s no secret. It’s the standard, stated policy of the National Election Pool. The insane rationale for the forced match is that the recorded vote is always fraud-free. But the real reason is to hide the extent of fraudulent vote miscounting.

The adjusted, published exit poll is a Matrix of Deceit. The True Vote Model (TVM) replaces the impossible, forced adjustments made to the unadjusted exit polls with a feasible, plausible estimate of returning voters.

The TVM applies to all elections, not just national. Presidential elections are used in this analysis as they are well-known; historical data is readily available. The TVM has been used to analyze congressional, senate and recall elections – and has uncovered strong evidence of fraud.

A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) is an application based on Matrix Algebra. The key to understanding the theory is mathematical subscript notation. The actual mathematics is really nothing more than simple arithmetic.

The model is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). Calculation methods are the following:

1- National Exit Poll
(returning voters (and vote shares) adjusted to match the fraudulent recorded vote)

True Vote Methods: Returning voters based on the previous election
2- recorded vote
3- votes cast (including allocated uncounted votes)
4- unadjusted national exit poll
5- True Vote

The National True Vote Model is based on total votes cast in the previous and current election. The True Vote Model (TVM) is a set of linear equations which calculate each candidate’s share of a) previous election returning voters and b) new voters who did not vote in the previous election.

National Exit Poll vote shares were used to calculate the True Vote in each election- except for 2004. At 12:22am, 13047 exit poll respondents indicated that Kerry was a 51-48% winner. The final 613 respondents (13660) and the returning 2000 voter mix were both adjusted in order to match the recorded vote (Bush 51-48%). Both sets of adjustments were impossible. It was only years later that the complete 2004 unadjusted exit poll was released. It showed that Kerry won the 13660 respondents by 51-47.5%.

The US Vote Census provides an estimate of the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.

The 1988-2012 State True Vote Model is based on returning state voters. The Governor, senate and congressional True Vote models work the same way.

Sensitivity Matrix: alternative scenarios
These tables gauge the sensitivity of the total candidate vote shares to changes in their shares of returning and new voters.

In 2004 Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million (50.7-48.3%). However, at the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline (13047 respondents), Kerry had 91% of returning Gore voters, 10% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters. In this base case scenario, Kerry had a 53.6% True Vote share and 10.7 million vote margin.

Sensitivity analysis indicates that Kerry won all plausible (and implausible) scenarios. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of Bush 2000 voters to win the fraudulent recorded vote.

Adjusting the base case vote shares to view worst case scenarios:
1) Kerry has 91% (no change) of returning Gore voters, just 8% of returning Bush voters and 53% of New voters. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.1% and a 7.2 million winning margin.

2) Kerry has just 89% of returning Gore voters, 8% of returning Bush voters and 57% of New voters (no change). Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.0% and a 6.9 million margin.

3) Assume the base case vote shares, but change the 98% returning 2000 voter turnout rate to 94% for Gore and 100% for Bush. Kerry’s total vote share is reduced to 52.7% and a 8.5 million margin.

4) Assume the base case 98% turnout of returning Gore and Bush voters and 91% Kerry share of returning Gore voters. To match the fraudulent recorded vote, Bush needed 61% of New voters compared to his 41% exit poll share. He also needed 96% of returning Bush voters compared to his 90% exit poll share. The required shares easily exceeded the 2% margin of error. The probabilities are infinitesimal.

Returning voters
The number of returning voters (RV) is estimated based on previous election voter mortality (5%) and an estimated turnout rate (TR).

Let TVP = total votes cast the in previous election.
Let TVC = total votes cast in the current election.

In 2000, 110.8 million votes (TVP) were cast. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years. In the base case, we assume equal 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. We calculate (RV) returning 2000 voters:
RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR
RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98

In 2004, 125.7 million votes were cast. The number of new 2004 voters (TVN) is the difference between 2004 votes cast (TVC) and returning 2000 voters (RV):
TVN = TVC – RV
TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2

Matrix notation
V (1) = returning Democratic voters
V (2) = returning Republican voters
V (3) = returning other (third-party) voters
RV = V (1) + V (2) + V (3) = total returning voters
V (4) = TVC – RV = number of new voters.

Calculate m (i) as the percentage mix of total votes cast (TVC) for returning and new voters V(i):
m (i) = V (i) / TVC, i=1, 4

Let a (i, j) = candidates (j=1,3) vote shares of returning and new voters (i=1,4).

True Vote calculation matrix
Vote Mix Dem Rep Other
Dem m1 a11 a12 a13
Rep m2 a21 a22 a23
Oth m3 a31 a32 a33
Dnv m4 a41 a42 a43

The total Democratic share is:
VS(1) = ∑ m(i) * a(i, 1), i=1,4
VS(1)= m(1)*a(1,1) + m(2)*a(2,1) + m(3)*a(3,1) + m(4)*a(4,1)

Republican share:
VS(2)= m(2)*a(1,2) + m(2)*a(2,2) + m(3)*a(3,2) + m(4)*a(4,2)

Third-party share:
VS(3)= m(3)*a(1,3) + m(2)*a(2,3) + m(3)*a(3,3) + m(4)*a(4,3)

Mathematical vote share constraints
Returning and new voter mix percentages must total 100%.
∑m (i) =100%, i= 1, 4

Candidate shares of returning and new voters must total 100%.
∑a (1, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (2, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (3, j) =100%, j=1, 3
∑a (4, j) =100%, j=1, 3

Democratic + Republican + third-party vote shares must total 100%.
∑ VS (i) = 100%, i=1,3

Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (match recorded vote)
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 45.25 37% 90% 10% 0.0% 93.4%
Bush 52.59 43. 9.0 91. 0.0 109.7 (impossible)
Other 3.67 3.0 64. 14. 22. 97.7
DNV. 20.79 17. 54. 44. 2.0 -
Total 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0% 101.4%

2004 True Vote Model
2000 Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other Turnout
Gore 52.13 41.5% 91% 9.0% 0% 98%
Bush 47.36 37.7 10.0 90.0 0.0 98
Other 3.82 3.00 64.0 14.0 22. 98
DNV. 22.42 17.8 57.0 41.0 2.0 -
Total 125.7 100% 53.5% 45.4% 1.0% 98%

Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Pct 39.% 55.% 57.% 59.% 61.%
of Bush........ Kerry % Vote Share
12% 51.1 54.0 54.3 54.7 55.1
11% 50.7 53.6 54.0 54.3 54.7
10% 50.4 53.2 53.6 53.9 54.3
9.% 50.0 52.9 53.2 53.6 53.9
4.% 48.1 51.0 51.3 51.7 52.1
............... Kerry Margin
12% 4.6 11.8 12.8 13.6 14.6
11% 3.7 10.9 11.8 12.7 13.6
10% 2.7 10.0 10.9 11.8 12.7
9.% 1.8 9.0 9.91 10.8 11.7
4% -2.9 4.3 5.18 6.08 7.00

..........Returning Gore Voter Turnout
Bush 94.% 95.% 96.% 97.% 98.%
Turnout..... Kerry % Vote Share
96% 53.4 53.5 53.7 53.8 53.9
97% 53.2 53.3 53.5 53.6 53.8
98% 53.0 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.6
99% 52.8 53.0 53.1 53.3 53.4
100% 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.1 53.2
............... Kerry Margin
96% 10.3 10.7 11.0 11.4 11.8
97% 9.86 10.3 10.6 10.9 11.3
98% 9.42 9.78 10.1 10.5 10.9
99% 8.97 9.33 9.69 10.1 10.4
100% 8.52 8.88 9.24 9.60 9.96

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2013 in True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

Richard Charnin
Jan. 2, 2013
Updated: Aug.31, 2015

An objective analysis of the 2012 election shows that Obama must have done much better than his recorded margin. The 2012 True Vote Model indicates that Obama had an approximate 55-43% True Vote (a 15 million margin) and overcame the systemic 4-5% red-shift fraud factor. He won the recorded vote by just 51.0-47.2% (a 5.0 million margin) .

Media Gospel
Media pundits, academics and politicians are quick to accept the recorded result in every election as gospel. But the landslide was denied, just like it was in 2008 and six previous elections.

Exit pollsters always assume that both prior and current elections were fair but that the exit poll samples were biased. So they adjust exit poll weights and vote shares to match the sacrosanct recorded vote. They never consider the possibility that the exit poll sampling was good but that the elections were fraudulent.

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six mainstream media giants which funds the exit polls. In 2012, just 31 states were polled. This effectively prevents a calculation of the total aggregate vote share.

Unadjusted 2012 state and national presidential exit polls have not been made available. Furthermore, in another omission, the How Voted in 2008 category was not included in the adjusted National Exit Poll demographic cross tabs displayed on media polling websites.

Is it just a coincidence that the past vote has consistently been a key factor in proving systemic election fraud in every election since 1988? In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Poll indicated millions more returning Bush voters from the prior election than actually voted. 

Why does the NEP place such onerous restrictions on exit poll transparency?  It’s bad enough that analysts never get to view raw unadjusted exit poll data. Why is the NEP hiding this critical information? There can only be one reason: the data would provide absolute proof that the elections were fraudulent. If election fraud was non-existent, the data would have been released. But a robust statistical analysis of the red-shift to the GOP in state and national unadjusted exit polls proves beyond all doubt that election fraud is systemic.

Conspiracy Theory?
Those not convinced by the overwhelming statistical and factual evidence and still maintain that election fraud is just a conspiracy theory are welcome to try and refute the following analysis.

Naysayers claim that Obama stole the 2012 election. They cite as proof the fact that he won 100% of the vote in 59 black Philadelphia precincts. They consider it impossible. They are wrong. It is entirely possible. This math proof will put an end to this canard.

If the 2008 election was not fraudulent, then the 2008 recorded vote (Obama had 52.9%, a 9.5 million vote margin) is a reasonable basis for estimating returning voters in 2012. Assuming plausible vote shares applied to returning and new voters results in a close match to Obama’s recorded margin.

On the other hand, if the 2008 election was fraudulent, then Obama’s 2008 unadjusted state 58.0% exit poll aggregate, 61.0% unadjusted National Exit Poll and 58.0% True Vote Model shares were essentially correct. Using the 58.0% share as the basis for estimating returning voters in 2012 (and applying the same plausible vote shares as above) Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 56.1-43.9% (2-party), a 15.5 million margin.

There are some who believe that Election Fraud was thwarted in 2012 by the Anonymous hack or government oversight. These factors may have prevented some late vote-rigging. But the True Vote Model and Late Vote results were consistent with 2008. Vote switching algorithms were in effect on Election Day in most states. Why should 2012 have been any different?

Smoking Gun: The Past Vote
All 2012 National Exit Poll demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. About 80 questions were posed to 25,000 respondents, but the most important one is missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? The past vote question was always asked before 2012. In at least four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008), the returning voter mix displayed in the adjusted NEP was mathematically (and physically) impossible. Each poll indicated that there were millions more returning Bush voters from the previous election than were still living – a clear indication of a fraudulent vote count.

Problem:Calculate by trial and error the average number of voters per Philadelphia division required for Obama to have 100% in 59 divisions. Assume that Obama had 97% of blacks  in 1700 divisions, 59 of which  voted 100% for Obama

Calculate the probability that 100% of voters in 59 Philadelphia divisions voted for Obama. Estimate an average of 182 voters/division. The  Margin of Error=3.22% for N=182 voters; Obama 97% share; 0.3 Cluster effect. Then there is  a 3.4% (1 in 29) probability that a division voted 100% for Obama ( 59 total, where 59 = 1700/29.)

The 2012 True Vote Model rectifies the NEP return voter anomaly by calculating feasible estimates of returning voters from the prior election.

Sensitivity Analysis
Pollsters and pundits and academics never analyze alternative returning voter turnout and corresponding vote share scenarios. Is it because a sensitivity analysis would reveal scenarios that they would rather not talk discuss?

The 2012 True Vote Model base case assumed that:
1. Obama won the 2008 True Vote: 58%-40.3%
2. A 95% turnout of Obama and McCain voters in 2012
3. Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters;7% of McCain
4. Obama had 59% of new voters; McCain had 41%
In this base case scenario, Obama had a 56.1% (two-party) True Vote Share and won by 15.5 million votes.

Romney needed to win 18% of returning Obama voters and 93% of returning McCain voters in order to match the recorded share (given the 2008 voter turnout assumption). In other words, there had to be an implausible 11% net defection of Obama voters to Romney.

Given the base case vote assumptions, Romney needed an implausibly low 72% turnout of Obama 2008 voters and a 95% turnout of McCain voters in order to match the recorded vote.

2008 National Exit Poll
To put the base case assumptions in context, let’s review the 2008 National Exit Poll. Obama had 89% of returning Kerry voters, 17% of returning Bush voters and 72% of those who did not vote in 2004. In order to match the recorded vote (Obama by 52.9-45.6%), the poll indicated an impossible 46% (60.3 million) of the 2008 electorate were returning Bush voters and just 37% (48.6 million) were returning Kerry voters. It implies that 103% of living Bush 2004 voters returned to vote in 2008.

On the other hand, assume a) that Kerry won the 2004 True Vote by 53.7-45.3% and therefore b) 47.5% of the 2004 electorate were returning Kerry voters vs. 40% Bush voters, then Obama won by 23 million votes with a 58.0% share.

The Late Vote – a True Vote Confirmation
The recurring pattern of Democratic presidential late vote shares exceeding the Election Day shares by approximately 7% is further confirmation of fraud. In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48.1% in the 117.4 million votes cast early and on Election Day. But he had a whopping 58.0-38.3% margin in the 11.7 votes recorded Late. Nearly half of his total margin came from late votes.

In 2008, Obama had 59% of 10.2 million late votes compared to 52.4% of votes cast early or on Election Day. Is it just a coincidence that he won the 2008 unadjusted state aggregate exit polls by a nearly identical 58.0-40.5% and the National Exit Poll by 61.0-37.5%? In 2012, there were just 31 adjusted state exit polls; unadjusted state and national poll results have not been released.

But is the late vote a legitimate proxy of the True Vote? To find out, we need to weight (multiply) each state’s late vote share by its total vote. In 2008, Obama won the weighted aggregate state late vote by 57.4-38.6%, within 1% of the weighted state exit polls and the True Vote Model. In 2012, he won the late vote by 54.0-41.8%. The 12.2% margin exactly matched the 2-party True Vote Model (56.1-43.9%). The fact that the weighted late shares matched the True Vote Model in both 2008 and 2012 is compelling evidence that the Late vote is fairly representative of the electorate.

Given Obama’s 58.0-38% margin for the 11.7 million late votes, this 2012 Vote share sensitivity analysis displays his total vote share over a range of Early and Election Day vote shares.

Red Shift
There was an overwhelmingly one-sided exit poll red-shift to the Republicans in all presidential elections since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%. The True Vote Model indicates a 53-41% margin, yet they won the official recorded vote by just 48-46%. The final published exit polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote – come hell or high water.

National Exit Poll Crosstab Adjustments
The 2012 National Exit Poll Party-ID category indicates a 39D-32R-29I split. Was the unadjusted Democratic share lowered to force a match to the recorded vote?

Let’s consider the 2004 and 2008 elections.The 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a 45.5D-27.3R-27.2I Party-ID split. It was adjusted to 39/32/29 to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, the Democrats led the pre-election Party ID polling by 38-35-27. The split was changed to 37-37-26 in the adjusted NEP to force a match to the recorded vote.

In 2004, Bush had a 48% average approval rating in 11 pre-election polls and a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate. The rating was adjusted to 53% in the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote.


2012 True Vote Model
Voted...2008 2012 2-party vote shares
2008 Implied Votes Mix Obama Romney
DNV.......... 10.4 8.20% 59.0% 41.0%
Obama...58.0% 67.6 53.3% 90.0% 7.00%
McCain..40.4% 46.9 37.0% 7.00% 93.0%
Other...1.60% 1.90 1.50% 50.0% 50.0%

Total…100% 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9%
Votes…………..126.8 71.1 55.7

2012 Sensitivity Analysis
….Pct of returning Obama
…. 82.5% 90.0% 92.0%
%McCain
…..Obama 2-party Share
10% 53.1% 57.2% 58.3%
7% 51.9% 56.1% 57.1%
4% 50.8% 54.9% 56.0%
……. Margin
10% 7.8 18.2 21.0
7% 5.0 15.4 18.1
4% 2.1 12.5 15.3

Sensitivity Analysis I: 2008 WAS FRAUDULENT
Obama had 58.0% (True Vote)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning Obama 2008 voters
Pct EV Share Margin
90% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
88% 371 54.97% 12,614
86% 333 53.89% 9,864
84% 318 52.80% 7,113
82% 315 51.72% 4,362 Recorded

b)Obama 90% of returning Obama
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 391 56.06% 15,365 True Vote
90% 371 55.05% 12,807
85% 333 53.95% 10,032
80% 318 52.77% 7,018
77% 318 52.00% 5,083 Recorded

Sensitivity Analysis II: 2008 WAS NOT FRAUDULENT
Obama had 52.9% (recorded)
Obama had 7% of returning McCain voters

a) 95% turnout of Obama and McCain 2008 voters
Obama pct of returning 2008 Obama voters
Pct EV Share Margin
91% 332 52.16% 5,491 Recorded
90% 303 51.67% 4,238
88% 285 50.68% 1,730
86% 272 49.69% -777
84% 253 48.71% -3,285

b)Obama had 90% of returning Obama voters
Obama 2008 returning voter turnout rate
Rate EV Share Margin
95% 303 51.67% 4,238 Recorded
93% 303 51.25% 3,177
91% 285 50.82% 2,087
89% 285 50.38% 964
87% 272 49.92% -191

Late Vote Confirms the True Vote
Year 2pty Obama Repub Other Margin
2008 59.8 57.4 38.6 4.0 18.8 late
2008 59.0 58.0 40.3 1.7 17.7 true
2012 56.4 54.0 41.8 4.2 12.2 late
2012 56.1 55.0 43.0 2.0 12.0 true

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2004 Sample Kerry Bush Other
Total 13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Share 100.0% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%

Total 125.7 100% 51.8% 46.9% 1.3%
Votes…… 125.7 65.1 58.8 1.8

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(17,836 respondents)
2008 Sample Obama McCain Other
Total 17.836 10,873 6,641 322
Share 100.0% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

2008 Party ID
2008 Sample Dem Rep Other
Total 17,774 8,096 4,851 4,827
Share 100.0% 45.5% 27.3% 27.2%

Final 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.1 13.0% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…42.5% 48.6 37.0% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….52.9% 60.5 46.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…4.60% 5.30 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes…………. 131.5 69.50 59.95 2.02

How Voted in 2004
Voted Kerry Bush Other DNV Total
2004….1,815 1,614 188 561 4,178
Share…43.5% 38.6% 4.5% 13.4% 100%

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
Voted…2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV……….. 17.7 13.4% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…50.2% 57.1 43.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush… 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes………….. 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

2008 True Vote Model
(Returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted…2004 2008
2004 True Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV………. 15.3 11.6% 71.0% 27.0% 2.0%
Kerry…53.7% 62.4 47.5% 89.0% 9.00% 2.0%
Bush….45.3% 52.6 40.0% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other…1.00% 1.16 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%

Total…100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes…………. 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1

____________________________________________________________________

Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

2006 Midterms
Regression Trend Model Projected Democratic Generic share: 56.43%
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

2008 Election Model
Obama
Projected: 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 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 2, 2013 in 2012 Election, True Vote Models

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis