Tag Archives: Open Source

2016 True Vote Model- California

Richard Charnin
Aug. 22, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Last 3 Elections: Exact Forecast of Electoral Vote

2016 True Vote Model- California

Clinton won the recorded vote: 61.7-31.6% (4.27 million votes). But election fraud was rampant.

Consider that in 2012, Obama beat Romney by 60.2-37.1% (3.0 million votes) in California. Do you believe that Clinton beat Obama’s margin by 1.2 million? If you do, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in.

1) To match the recorded vote, Clinton needed to win new voters by 90-2%.
2) Nearly 450,000 angry Sanders voters did not turn out for Hillary.

Clinton won the True Vote by 55.0-37.8% (2.44 million votes).
The 1.8 million True Vote discrepancy from the recorded vote comprised nearly 2/3 of her bogus 2.8 million vote national margin.

Media shills insist that Clinton won by 3 million votes. It has become their Mantra, along with the debunked Russian “collusion”. Show them the numbers and tell them: THE RECORDED VOTE IS NEVER EQUAL TO THE TRUE VOTE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FRAUD-FREE ELECTION.

California True Vote Model

There are eleven counties in California with more registered voters than voting age adults in the county. The counties include San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Related CA posts:

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 22, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , ,

More clues on Election Fraud from Humboldt Cty, CA

Richard Charnin
Jan.1, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

Humboldt is the gift that keeps on giving. It is the only county in the U.S. which uses an Open Source System (TEVS) to count and audit votes. The system was installed in 2006.

In the CA primary, Bernie Sanders had his highest margin (71%) in Humboldt.

In 2008-2012, Obama did 2.58% better in Humboldt than he did in the full state. This is to be expected. But in 2016, Clinton did 1.75% worse in Humboldt. Her 4.26% increase over Obama in CA represents a 1.2 million increase in margin. Was she really that popular? Or was her vote padded?

In the 2016 presidential election, Jill Stein’s 6.1% share in Humboldt was her highest in the state – just like it was for Bernie. Clinton’s 56% share in Humboldt ranked #20 of 58 California counties. Stein’s average in the 19 counties was 2.3%. Clinton averaged 68.0%. So how come Stein did so much better in Humboldt than she did in the other 19 liberal counties?

Could it be Humboldt’s nearly foolproof Open Source voting system? Could it be that fraud was prevented in Humboldt? Could it be that nearly 2/3 of Stein’s votes were blue-shifted to Clinton? Could it be that Clinton’s 61% CA share was inflated by at least 4%? Note that 4% of 14 million votes is 560,000. That is a 1.2 million difference in vote margin.

Keep in mind that the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote. There is always election fraud. But in Humboldt, we can assume that the recorded vote is the True Vote due to its near foolproof Open Source system. There is no reason to believe Clinton’s recorded CA vote is legitimate.

Humboldt Democratic 2-party share
1988-2004 Before TEVS: 57.2%
2008-2016 After TEVS: 64.6%

California Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 60.21% 36.46% 3.33%
2012 60.24% 37.12% 2.64%
2016 61.73% 31.62% 6.66% HRC margin 7% over Obama?

Humboldt Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 62.05% 33.95%.4.00%
2012 59.68% 32.61% 7.72%
2016 56.04% 31.01% 12.95% HRC loses 3.64% vs Trump 1.60%

Democratic 2-party Presidential share
2008 62.28% 64.64% 2.36%
2012 61.87% 64.67% 2.80%
2016 66.13% 64.37% -1.75% HRC gains 4.26% over Obama?

…………………. Stein Clinton
1 San Francisco.. 2.4% 85.0%
2 Alameda……… 2.7  78.7
3 Marin…………..2.2  78.1
4 San Mateo……..1.6  75.7
5 Santa Cruz……..3.5  73.9
6 Santa Clara…….1.8  72.7
7 Los Angeles……2.2  71.8
8 Sonoma……….. 3.2  69.4
9 Contra Costa…..1.9  68.5
10 Imperial……….1.6  67.9
11 Monterey………2.1  66.8
12 Yolo…………….2.2 66.7
13 Napa……………2.1  63.9
14 Solano………….1.7  61.6
15 Santa Barbara ..2.1  60.6
16 Mendocino…….5.6  58.9
17 Sacramento….. 1.8  58.3
18 San Benito……. 1.7 57.1
19 San Diego………1.8 56.3
20 Humboldt……..6.2 56.0

View this spreadsheet of 58 county votes.

No automatic alt text available.

1 Comment

Posted by on January 1, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis