# Tag Archives: political scientists

## Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Jan. 22, 2017

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42%, yet won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy.

But just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were accurate in 2016.   Clinton won the Recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%. Trump led the Election Model recorded vote forecast by 44.4-42.9% which exactly matched the 306-232 EV.

The media was in the tank for Clinton, the establishment candidate. In the pre-election and exit polls, Democratic Party-ID affiliation and corresponding vote shares were inflated at the expense of Independents. The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won Independents by nearly 10%.

Probabilities of the state and national exit poll discrepancies

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written four books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968.  Except for 2016,  the deviations have  always favored the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls.  Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unadjusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

In 2016 election analysts calculated that Clinton actually won by 292-246 based strictly on the unadjusted exit polls  which favored Clinton.  They focused on four states that Trump won: WI, NC, MI and PA. The analysts assumed that the exit polls were fairly conducted – just like they had been in the past. But Trump won the post election True Vote model by 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

But why only recount states that Trump narrowly won? What about states he narrowly lost: NV, MN, NM, CO, NH?

The  uadjusted polls also appear suspicious in  states where they closely matched the recorded vote:  CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s in 2012 by an implausible 7%. Illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model

US Count Votes National Election Data Archive Project
Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies

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

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Forecast and True Vote Model
Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

2016 Election Model Forecast
Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Unadjusted 28 State Exit polls: Clinton 47.9-44.7%

## 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
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.

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%

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 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 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

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

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%

(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%

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%

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%

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%

____________________________________________________________________

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%

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

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

## Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes

Late Votes and the True Vote Model indicate that Obama may have won by 16 million votes

Richard Charnin
Dec. 21, 2012
Updated Jan. 1, 2013

In 2012, Obama had to once again overcome the persistent 4-5% fraud factor. In each of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, Democratic Late Votes recorded after Election Day have closely matched the unadjusted state and national exit polls – and the True Vote Model.

Why would anyone expect that 2012 would be any different? This analysis indicates that Obama did much better than his recorded 51.03-47.19% margin (4.97 million votes) and won by nearly 16 million votes. So what else is new?

This analysis does not include the millions of voters who were disenfranchised and never voted. In Florida, 49,000 voters got tired of waiting on lines for eight hours and went home. Had they voted, Obama would have won by more than 20 million votes.

In 2012, there were 129.132 million votes, of which 11.677 million were recorded after Election Day. Obama won these late votes by 58.0-38.3%, a 7.7% increase over his 50.3% Election Day share.

The 2008 late vote result was similar. Obama had 52.87% of 131.37 million total votes. He had 52.3% of 121.21 million votes recorded on Election Day, but won 59.2% of 10.2 million late votes, a 6.8% increase over his Election Day share.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

Pollsters and pundits and academics never do a sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios. Is it because they have never been exposed to this critical analytical modeling tool? Or is it that using it would raise issues that they would rather not talk about?

In the True Vote Model, Obama won all plausible scenarios.

Base case assumptions
1. Obama had a 58% vote share in 2008
This is his unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share (82,388 respondents) and True Vote Model. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by 61-37%.
2. Equal 95% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters.
3. Obama had 90% of Obama and 7% of returning McCain voters.
(net 3% defection of returning Obama voters to Romney)
In 2008, Obama had 89% of returning Kerry and 17% of Bush voters.
4. Obama had 59% of new voters.
In 2008, Obama had 73% (two-party) of new voters.
Obama wins by 15.8 million votes with a 56.1% (two-party) share.

Implausible: Match to the Recorded vote

I. Vote shares required to match
Obama had 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning McCain
(net 11% defection advantage to Romney)
Obama has 51.8% (2-party) and wins by 4.8 million votes.

II. Returning voters required to match
Voter turnout: 71% of Obama voters and 95% of McCain voters
Obama has 51.9% (two-party) and wins by 5.0 million votes.

Pundits, Naysayers and the Myth of Fair Elections

Just 31 states were exit polled in 2012. But unadjusted state and national polls are not available. As always, only the final adjusted state and national exit polls are displayed on mainstream media websites. As always, all exit poll category cross tabs were forced to match the recorded vote. There has never been any indication on the part of the exit pollsters that this practice will ever change.

The “How Voted in 2008” category is not included. Perhaps because it has proven to be a very useful tool in proving election fraud. In each of the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections, in order for the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it was forced to assume that there were millions more returning Bush phantom voters from the previous election than were still living.

It must have been written in stone: There is no such thing as Election Fraud. It is just a conspiracy theory. All elections are squeaky clean. The only poll that counts is the one held on Election Day. The recorded vote is the same as the True Vote. There is no justification in responding to analyst requests to view raw precinct exit poll/recorded vote data.

The usual suspects may try to thrash this analysis and call it another “conspiracy theory”. Or they will avoid discussing it. But 2012 confirms that only systemic election fraud could be the cause of the massive red-shift in the 1988-2008 Democratic unadjusted state and national exit polls (52-42%) and True Vote Model (53-41%) to the recorded 48-46%. The probability of the 8% differential is 1 in trillions. In the six elections, there were approximately 90,000 National Exit Poll respondents and 370,000 state exit poll respondents.

Pundits and naysayers are quick to accept the recorded result as gospel. They will perpetuate the myth of fair elections and point to Obama’s solid 5 million vote margin. But once again, a Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud.

Based on the historical record, late votes recorded after Election Day closely matched the unadjusted state exit polls. But exit poll naysayers cannot use the bogus faith-based canard of a systemic built-in differential exit poll response; Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans or that exit poll respondents misrepresented their vote. They cannot use those arguments because the analysis is based on recorded votes, not exit polls. They will have to come up with an explanation to refute the persistent pattern of late recorded votes breaking sharply to the Democrat.

Late Vote vs. Election Day Share

The late vote timeline shows that Obama’s lead was steadily increasing. The consistent incremental late vote share is very telling. But the day to day changes in his total share do not tell the full story. One must consider the difference between Total Late Vote and Election Day shares.

If Late Votes are within 3% of the True Vote, it is a confirmation of systematic election fraud. The question needs to be asked: Why do late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share?

2000: 102.6 million votes on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%.

2004: 116.7 million votes on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%.

2008: 121.0 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%.
Obama won 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5% He won the 131 million recorded votes by 52.9-45.6%, a 9.5 million vote margin. But he did much better in the unadjusted National Exit Poll: 61-37% (17,836 respondents, a 31 million vote margin. He also won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,388 respondents) by 58.0-40.5%, a 23 million margin. Obama had an identical 58.0% in the True Vote Model, exactly matching and confirming the state exit polls.

2012: 117.456 million votes on Election Day. Obama led 50.3-48.1%. He won the 129.132 million total recorded vote by 3.8% (51.0-47.2%), a 4.9 million margin. But he won the 11.677 million late votes by nearly 20% (58.0-38.3%).

In addition, Obama had a 56.1% True Vote (2-party) vs. 52.0% recorded. When the late state vote shares are weighted by total votes cast, Obama’s 56.3% (2-party) share is close to his 56.1% True Vote. This is a strong indicator that late votes are at least fairly representative of the total electorate.

Unadjusted 2012 state and national exit polls are not, and never will be, available. The mainstream media does not want you to know the truth about this, or any other, election.

Obama vote margin

Total:51.03-47.19% (3.84% margin; 129.132 million votes);51.96% 2-party
Election Day: 50.34-48.07% (2.27%; 117.456); 51.15% 2-party
Late vote: 57.99-38.29% (19.70%; 11.677); 60.23% 2-party
Weighted late vote: 53.97-41.83% (12.14%); 56.33% 2-party
True Vote Model: 56.11-43.89% (12.22%); 2-party)

The Early Vote
In 2008, the lowest exit poll discrepancies were in the states that had the highest percentage of early voting on paper ballots. Obama had 61% in the 2008 National Exit Poll, 58% in the aggregate of the state exit polls. The assumption is that Obama did approximately 3% better in late absentee and provisional ballots than he did in early voting.

Obama’s 56.1% True Vote (no fraud) calculation assumes he had 56% on Election Day, matching his early voting share. The Late Vote share is known exactly.

If the election was fraud-free, it is unlikely that Obama’s Election Day margin would differ from his early vote margin by more than 2%. But who can believe the unverifiable machine vote counts on Election Day?

In 2008, states with the highest percentage of early votes (WA, OR, CO, etc.) had the lowest exit poll discrepancies – and were strong Obama states. There were 131.3 million recorded votes of which 40.6 million (30.6%) were cast early on hand-delivered or mail-in paper ballots. The mail-in ballots accounted for 31.7% of all early votes.

Calculating the Election Day Vote

The only unknown component is Obama’s early vote share. If we had this statistic, his Election Day share is a simple calculation. Early vote total estimates gave Obama 55% in selected battleground states. He had 60.2% of the late 2-party recorded vote and 52.0% of the total 2-party recorded vote. Assuming he had 55% of early voters, then Romney needed 51% on Election Day to match the recorded vote. This is implausible and clearly indicates fraud.

This table determines the election day vote shares required to match the recorded vote given the early, late and total vote shares.

```How Voted....... Votes Pct Obama Romney Early voting.... 40.6 32.0% 55.0% 45.0% Election Day.... 75.0 59.1% 49.0% 51.0% Late Votes...... 11.2 8.9% 60.2% 39.8%```

``` ```

```Recorded........ 126.8 100.0% 51.9% 48.1% Votes (millions)............... 126.8 65.9 61.0 ```
Sensitivity Analysis

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 shares.
``` ........ Obama Election Day % ........ 49.0% 52.0% 56.0% Early.... Obama Share 56.0% 52.2% 54.0% 56.4% 55.0% 51.9% 53.7% 56.1% < True Vote 49.0% 50.0% 51.8% 54.1% ....... Margin 56.0% 5.7 10.2 16.2 55.0% 4.9 9.4 15.4 < True Vote 49.0% 0.0 4.5 10.5 ```

2012 Late Vote Timeline
On……Obama led by…
```Nov. 8 50.34-48.07% of 117.45 million recorded votes Nov. 9 50.43-47.97% of 119.58 (2.13 late) Nov.10 50.51-47.87% of 122.20 (4.75 late) Nov.11 50.52-47.86% of 122.58 (5.13 late) Nov.13 50.55-47.82% of 122.94 (5.49 late) Nov.14 50.61-47.76% of 123.73 (6.27 late) Nov.16 50.66-47.69% of 124.69 (7.24 late) Nov.20 50.73-47.61% of 125.53 (8.07 late) Nov.25 50.80-47.50% of 126.87 (9.41 late) Nov.28 50.88-47.38% of 127.74 (10.29 late) Nov.29 50.90-47.36% of 127.87 (10.42 late) Dec.05 50.94-47.31% of 128.36 (10.90 late) Dec.21 50.96-47.28% of 128.74 (11.28 late) Final Dec.31 51.03-47.19% of 129.13 (11.68 late) ```
Election Day and Late vote shares
* indicates suspicious anomaly
href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012″>wikipedia.org United_States_presidential_election,_2012

``` ................EDay Late Late Votes (000) Total...........50.3% 58.0% 11,677```

``` ```

```Alabama.........39% 37% 312 * Alaska..........41% 40% 80 Arizona.........43% 47% 666 * Arkansas........37% 36% 25 California......59% 63% 3,609 * Colorado........51% 54% 222 * Connecticut.....51% 59% 1,307 * Delaware........59% 80% 0 D. C............91% 90% 50 Florida.........50% 53% 182 * Georgia.........45% 49% 47 * Hawaii..........71% 72% 0 Idaho...........32% 33% 45 Illinois........57% 65% 130 * Indiana.........44% 49% 88 * Iowa............52% 63% 24 * Kansas..........38% 37% 39 Kentucky........38% 29% 117 * Louisiana.......58% 41% 1 Maine...........56% 57% 64 Maryland........62% 65% 236 * Massachusetts...61% 55% 132 * Michigan........53% 71% 222 * Minnesota.......53% 79% 6 Mississippi.....44% 46% 85 Missouri........44% 71% 12 Montana.........42% 40% 49 Nebraska........38% 44% 27 Nevada..........52% 69% 3 New Hampshire...52% 35% 10 New Jersey......58% 61% 327 * New Mexico......53% 60% 13 New York........63% 68% 902 * North Carolina..48% 48% -4 * North Dakota....39% 15% 3 Ohio............50% 59% 229 * Oklahoma........33% 32% 2 Oregon..........53% 58% 330 Pennsylvania....52% 43% 292 * Rhode Island....63% 60% 29 South Carolina..44% 47% 111 * South Dakota....40% 44% 0 Tennessee.......39% 40% 8 Texas...........41% 43% 53 Utah............25% 23% 106 Vermont.........67% 65% 61 Virginia........51% 65% 160 * Washington......55% 57% 1,217 West Virginia...36% 36% 29 Wisconsin.......53% 48% 15 * Wyoming.........28% 25% 3 ```
___________________________________________________________________

State and National Exit Polls

The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted state exit polls. The exit poll naysayers cannot use the worn out bogus claim that a) late poll “respondents” misrepresent how they voted and b) there is a differential response: Democrats are more anxious to be interviewed than Republicans.

But all we have is the 2012 National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote. It shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. All demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote.

The National Exit Poll crosstabs and corresponding True Vote adjustments show that the Democrats had a 39-32% Party-ID advantage. In 2004, the Final NEP 37-37 split did not agree with the pre-election survey 38-35%.

Similarly, Bush’s 53% approval rating did not match the unadjusted exit poll 50% or the 11 pre-election poll 48% average. The bogus 53% National Exit Poll approval had the effect of inflating Bush’s total share to match the recorded vote.

In 2012, about 80 questions were asked of over 25,000 exit poll respondents. But the most important crosstab was missing: Who did you vote for in 2008? Maybe it’s because it resulted in an impossible returning voter mix in each of the 1988,1992,2004 and 2008 elections.

That’s why the True Vote Model always determines a feasible mix of returning voters based on prior election votes cast – and the bogus adjusted Final Exit Poll that is forced to match the recorded vote is replaced by the True Vote – which reflects True Voter Intent.

Early and Late Vote Questions

If the Late Votes are representative of the total vote, they are another confirmation of systematic election fraud.

– Why would the late votes always show a sharp increase in the Democratic vote share?

– Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive to steal the late recorded votes?

– Could it be that early and late votes match the unadjusted exit poll aggregate and the True Vote Model because they are cast on paper ballots (provisional, absentee) and not on computers?

– Could it be that the bulk of late votes are in Democratic strongholds? That may account for some of the discrepancy, but not all. In 2012, Obama had a 54.0-41.8% margin when the late state vote shares were weighted by the total state vote (56.3% of the 2-party vote) – very close to the 56.1% True Vote Model.

Consider…
1) Late votes are cast on paper ballots, not DREs or optiscans.
2) There is no incentive to miscount votes after the election.
3) Democratic late vote shares always far exceed Election Day shares. This is indicative of a structural phenomenon.
4) Blacks, Hispanics and Asians votes increased for Obama in 2012. Since the total vote declined, there were fewer white voters, increasing Obama’s total share.
5) When late shares are weighted by total state votes, Obama’s 14.8% margin far exceeds his 2.3% Election Day margin.

Democratic late vote discrepancies from Election Day shares may not be proof of systemic election fraud by itself. But fraud has already been proved; late votes are a strong confirmation. Given the anomalies, there is no reason why an analysis of early and late recorded votes are ignored in the mainstream media and academia. Without an accurate composition of early/late vote demographics, we cannot know to what degree they are representative of the electorate as a whole.

This analysis has indicated why Obama would be expected to do better in early and late voting than on Election Day. The question is: How much better?
_______________________________________________________________________

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%

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

Posted by on November 26, 2012 in 2012 Election

## Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: The 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov.5, 2012

Are there any forecasters in the corporate media who discuss systemic election fraud and include a True Vote analysis in their models? I have not seen any. The pundits ignore election fraud completely by limiting their projections to the recorded vote. But they are missing the big story which can be expressed by the simple formula:

Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud factor

The forecast: Obama has 320.7 expected electoral votes (see the definition of the expected value below) and a 332 snapshot EV. His 99.4% win probability is based on 497 electoral vote wins out of 500 trial simulations. His projected popular vote share margin is 51-48%, a 69-65 million vote margin.

But the recorded vote is not the True Vote. The True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The True Vote Model indicates Obama would have approximately 371 EV, a 55% vote share and win by 74-59 million votes in a fraud-free election.

Obama’s 332 snapshot EV assumes he will win all the battleground states except for NC. The races are very close in CO (9), FL (29), NC (15), NH (4), NV (6), OH (18) WI (10), VA (13) and that is why the expected EV is just 320.7. But keep in mind that the projections are based on LV polls which a) always understate Democratic turnout and b) are at least partially based on previous election bogus recorded votes.

If FL, OH and NC are stolen, Obama will likely lose. Even though he won the True Vote, it was not enough to overcome the FRAUD FACTOR.

To the pundits, the Fraud Factor is zero. They are not paid to project the True Vote. Their projections are based on Likely Voter polls which are always close to the popular recorded vote. The public has always been led to believe that the recorded vote was in fact the True Vote. It never is. The historical uncounted votes which are 70-80% Democratic prove it. And there have been approximately 40-45 million uncounted ballots in the last six presidential elections – according to the U.S. Census. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that finally, after 12 long years, there is a near critical mass of election fraud awareness. The 2000 and the 2004 elections have been proven to be stolen. Of course, the media pundits know this. But they like their jobs too much to defy their editors.

But the word is finally getting out after decades of media silence and misinformation. Yes, it’s a conspiracy, all right – a conspiracy fact, not a theory. The simple fact is that the conspiracy is the media and politicians who have kept the facts about our broken electoral system hidden from the public. What is the proof? The proof is…they never talk about the millions of uncounted votes or the proprietary voting machines owned and serviced by right-wing organizations – who just so happen to also count the votes..

Unlike the other election forecasters in the media and academia, the 2012 True Vote/ Election Fraud Forecast model projects both the True Vote and the official Recorded vote.

– The Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation is based on the latest state likely voter (LV) polls.
– The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

The LV polls are based partially on a Likely Voter Cutoff Model which always reduces projected (Democratic) turnout. Another factor to keep inmind is that the polls are at least somewhat based on prior election recorded votes – which are themselves tainted.

Even so, Obama has a 99% probability of winning the Electoral Vote (EV). Models which indicate an 80% win probability based on the latest polls cannot be correct – probably because they include extraneous factor variables. An experienced modeler knows how to KISS (keep it simple stupid).

Only 500 election simulation trials are necessary to determine the EV win probability. Anything more than that is overkill. Calculating the expected EV does not require a million scenario combinations, either.

Assuming the polls, the state win probabilities p(i) can be calculated. The expected EV is just a simple summation based on the expected state electoral votes: Expected EV = ∑p(i)* EV(i), where i =1,51 states.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

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

2008 Election Model
Obama 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

Posted by on November 5, 2012 in 2012 Election

## Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Final Forecast: 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model

Richard Charnin
Nov 5, 2012

The final 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote. His projected 51.6% two-party recorded share was close to the actual 51.9%. Obama actually did much better in the True Vote Model forecast (391 EV, 56% two-party). As usual, the systematic fraud factor caused the red-shift. But Obama overcame the fraud, just as he did in 2008.

The 2008 Election Model was also right on the money. It forecast that Obama would have a 53.1% recorded share and 365.3 expected EV. He had 52.9% and 365 EV. But he had 58.0% in the True Vote Model and 420 EV. His 58.0% weighted aggregate share of the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) confirmed the True Vote Model. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by an astounding 61-37%.

The Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model is updated on a daily basis. The election is assumed to be held on the latest poll date.

Final Forecast: 11/06/2012 9am
Obama: 320.7 expected electoral votes; 99.6% win probability (498 of 500 trials).
He had a 332 snapshot EV (actual total).
He led the state poll weighted average by 49.3-46.2% (51.6% 2-party share).
He led 50.4-47.0% in 16 of 18 Battleground states with 184 of 205 EV.

Obama led Romney in the RCP National average: 48.8-48.1%.
Rasmussen and Gallup are Likely Voter (LV) polls which lean to the GOP.
Rasmussen: Romney led 49-48%.
Gallup: Romney led 50-49%. It was 51-46% a week ago.

Obama led in the Rand poll 49.5-46.2% (closely matching the state polls). Unlike the national LV polls, the Rand poll doesn’t eliminate respondents but weights them on a scale of 1-10 (based on voter preference and intention to vote).

The 3% Obama margin increase in the Rand poll over the national LV polls illustrates why the LVs understate Obama’s margin by using the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). LV polls are a subset of the registered voter (RV) sample. They always understate the Democratic share. The majority of voters eliminated by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) are Democrats.

The True Vote Model indicates that Obama would have 55.2% of the two-party vote with 371 expected EV in a fraud-free election. Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model (html)
– The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls and currently assumes an equal split of undecided voters. The expected electoral vote is the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

– The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

The model calculates an estimated True Vote forecast for the National aggregate or any state. The calculation is displayed below the input data section. State poll-based national vote shares, electoral vote and probabilities are displayed on the right side of the screen.
``` 2008 True Vote 2012 Vote Pct Obama Romney Obama 76.2 58.0% 72.4 68.8 54.2% 90% 10% McCain 53.0 40.3% 50.3 47.8 37.7% 7% 93% Other. 2.20 1.66% 2.10 1.97 1.6% 50% 50% DNV ...................8.27 6.5% 59% 41% Total 131.4 100% 124.8 126.8 100% 56.1% 43.9% ..............True Vote........... 71.1 55.7 ............. Recorded Vote....... 51.0% 47.2% ............. Projected 2-party... 51.6% 48.4% ............. Electoral Vote ............. Projected Snapshot.. 332 206 ............. 500 Simulation Mean. 321 217 ............. Expected True EV.... 385 153 ............. EV Win Probability.. 99.8% ```
This worksheet contains the weekly polling trend analysis.

The polling data is from the Real Clear Politics (RCP) and Electoral-vote.com websites. The simulation uses the latest state polls.

View this 500 election trial simulation electoral vote frequency graph.

1988-2008: 274 State exit polls. An 8% Discrepancy

In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led both state and national exit polls by 52-42%. There were approximately 375,000 respondents in the 274 state polls and 90,000 respondents in the six national polls. Overall, an extremely low margin of error.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

The Ultimate Smoking Gun that proves Systemic Election Fraud:
1) The Likely Voter Cutoff Model eliminates newly registered Democrats from the LV sub-sample. Kerry had 57-61% of new voters; Obama had 72%.
2) Exit poll precincts are partially selected based on the previous election recorded vote.
3) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 226 of 274 exit polls red-shifted to the Republicans. Only about 137 would normally be expected to red-shift. The probability is zero.
4) 135 of 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error. Only 14 (5%) would normally be expected. The probability is ZERO.
5) 131 of the 135 exit polls that exceeded the margin of error red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability is ZERO.

No exit polls in 19 states

The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of six corporate media giants which funds the pollster Edison Research to do exit polling in the U.S and abroad. The NEP announced that they would not exit poll in 19 states, 16 of which are universally thought of as being solid RED states. Or are they?

In 2008, Obama won exit polls in AK, AL, AZ, GA, NE, SD. He came close to winning in TX, KY, SC, TN, MS. These former RED states may have turned PURPLE. View this worksheet in the model.

The bad news is that the NEP decision to eliminate the polls makes it easier for vote margins to be padded and electoral votes flipped. Without the polls, it is much more difficult to calculate the statistical probabilities of fraud based on exit poll discrepancies. In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats led the unadjusted state exit polls by 52-42%, but by just 48-46% in the official recorded vote. This is a mathematically impossible result which proves systemic election fraud.

The good news is that the post-election True Vote Model should find implausible discrepancies in the recorded state and national votes. After all, that is what it was designed to do.

Sensitivity Analysis

The pre-election TVM built in the 2012 Election Model uses alternative scenarios of 2008 voter turnout and defection rates to derive a plausible estimate of the total final share. The returning voter assumptions are based on Obama’s 58% True Vote (a plausible estimate) and his 53% recorded share. The latter scenario results in vote shares that are close to the LV polls.

The sensitivity analysis of alternative turnout and vote share scenarios is an important feature in the model. The model displays the effects of effects of incremental changes in turnout rates and shares of returning voters. The tables display nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. Obama’s vote share, winning margin and popular vote win probability are displayed for each scenario.

Registered and Likely Voters

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters are allocated and have been confirmed by the True Vote Model.

Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of Registered Voter polls and are excellent predictors of the recorded vote – which always understate the Democratic True Vote. One month prior to the election, the RV polls are replaced by LVs. An artificial “horse race” develops as the polls invariably tighten.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) understates the voter turnout of millions of new Democrats, thereby increasing the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in RV polls than in the LVs. Based on the historical record, the Democratic True Vote share is 4-5% higher than the LV polls indicate. The LVs anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 55% True Vote share.

Media pundits and pollsters are paid to project the recorded vote – not the True Vote. The closer they are, the better they look. They never mention the fraud factor which gets them there, but they prepare for it by switching to LV polls.

The disinformation loop is closed when the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls are adjusted to match the LV recorded vote prediction.

2004 and 2008 Election Models

The 2004 model matched the unadjusted exit polls. Kerry had 51.7% and 337 electoral votes. But the election was stolen. Kerry had 48.3% recorded. View the 2004 Electoral and popular vote trend

The 2008 model exactly matched Obama’s 365 EV. The National model exactly matched his official recorded 52.9% share; the State model projected 53.1%. His official margin was 9.5 million votes.

Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted, weighted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) which exactly matched the post-election True Vote Model. Obama’s 23 million True Vote margin was too big to steal.

The National Exit Poll displayed on mainstream media websites (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc.) indicates that Obama had 52.9% – his recorded vote. Unadjusted state and national exit polls are always forced to match the recorded share.

But the media never discussed the fact that Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents). View the 2008 Electoral and popular vote trend

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the 1988-2008 State Exit Polls and the corresponding Recorded Votes.

The True Vote Model

The 2008 True Vote Model (TVM) determined that Obama won in a landslide by 58-40.3%. Based on the historical red-shift, he needs at least a 55% True Vote share to overcome the systemic 5% fraud factor. The TVM was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: Obama had an identical 58-40.5% margin (83,000 respondents). He won unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by an even bigger 61-37% margin.

In projecting the national and state vote, a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. The TVM uses estimated 2008 voter turnout in 2012 and corresponding 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate result.

There are two basic options for estimating returning voters. The default option assumes the unadjusted 2008 exit poll as a basis. The second assumes the recorded vote. It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The 1988-2008 True Vote Model utilizes estimates of previous election returning and new voters and and adjusted state and national exit poll vote shares.

Monte Carlo Simulation

The simulation consists of 500 election trials. The electoral vote win probability is the number of winning election trials divided by 500.

There are two forecast options in the model. The default option uses projections based on the latest pre-election state polls. The second is based on the state True Vote. The fraud factor is the difference between the two.

The projected vote share is the sum of the poll and the undecided voter allocation (UVA). The model uses state vote share projections as input to the Normal Distribution function to determine the state win probability.

In each election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated for each state and compared to Obama’s state win probability. If RND is greater than the win probability, the Republican wins the state. If RND is less than the win probability, Obama wins the state. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 electoral votes. The process is repeated in 500 election trials.

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.
1. The Snapshot EV is a simple summation of the electoral votes. It could be misleading if close state elections favor one candidate.
2. The Mean EV is the average of the 500 simulated election trials.
3. The Theoretical EV is the product sum of the state electoral votes and corresponding win probabilities. A simulation or meta-analysis is not required to calculate the expected EV.

The Mean EV approaches the Theoretical EV as the number of election trials increase. This is an illustration of the Law of Large Numbers.

Obama’s electoral vote win probability is his winning percentage of 500 simulated election trials.

The national popular vote win probability is calculated using the national aggregate of the the projected vote shares. The national margin of error is 1-2% lower than the MoE of the individual states. That is, if you believe the Law of Large Numbers and convergence to the mean.

The Fraud Factor

The combination of True Vote Model and state poll-based Monte Carlo Simulation enables an analyst to determine if the forecast electoral and popular vote share estimates are plausible. The aggregate state poll shares can be compared to the default TVM.

The TVM can be forced to match the aggregate poll projection by…
– An incremental change in vote shares. A red flag would be raised if the match required that Obama captured 85% of returning Obama voters and Romney had 95% of returning McCain voters (a 10% net defection).

– Adjusting 2008 voter turnout in 2012. For example, if McCain voter turnout is required to be 10-15% higher than Obama’s, that would raise a red flag.

– Setting the returning voter option to the 2008 recorded vote. The implicit assumption is that the 2008 recorded vote was the True Vote. But the 2008 election was highly fraudulent. Therefore, the model vote shares will closely match the likely voter polls.

Check the simulated, theoretical and snapshot electoral vote projections and corresponding win probabilities.

In 2004, Election Model forecasts were posted weekly using the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final Nov.1 forecast had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

2004 Election Model Graphs

In the 2006 midterms, the adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to match the House 52-46% Democratic margin. But the 120 Generic Poll Trend Model forecast that the Democrats would have a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted exit poll.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% recorded share. He won by 9.5 million votes. But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – even before undecided voters were allocated. The landslide was denied.

The post-election True Vote Model determined that Obama won by 23 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share matched the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

Exit pollsters and media pundits have never explained the massive 11% state exit poll margin discrepancy or the impossible 17% National Exit Poll discrepancy. If they did, they would surely claim that the discrepancies were due to reluctant Republican responders. But they will not even try to explain the impossible returning voter adjustments required to force the polls to match the recorded vote in the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections.

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

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

2008 Election Model
Obama 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

Posted by on October 17, 2012 in 2012 Election

## 10/06/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 295 EV; 89% Win Probability

10/06/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 295 EV; 89% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Oct. 6, 2012

Note: This is the final Nov.5 projection: 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model.

Click this link to the final 2012 forecast. It was exactly right: Obama had 51.6% (2-party) and 332 EV with a 99.6% win probability. But his True Vote was 55% with 380 EV. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/4380/

The 2008 Election Model also predicted Obama’s recorded vote exactly at 365 EV and 52.9% with a 100% win probability. But his True Vote was 58.0% with 420 EV. http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model is updated on a daily basis. The projections assume the election is held on the latest poll date. Two forecasting methods are used.

The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls and currently assumes an equal split of undecided voters. The expected electoral vote is the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.

The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.

On Oct.6 Obama led the weighted average of the state pre-election polls by 48.3-45.6% and the national poll average by 48.3-47.2%. Romney’s “bounce” from the debate reduced Obama’s expected electoral vote to 295, down from 325 last week and 342 two weeks ago.

The Gallup poll taken after the debate(10/4-10/6) was tied at 47-47%. Obama led by 50-45% before the debate (9/30-10/2). The Rasmussen poll is tied at 48%.

If the election were held today, the Monte Carlo simulation indicates that Obama would have an 89% probability of winning the electoral vote.

Likely voter (LV) polls discount the pervasive systematic fraud factor. They are traditionally excellent predictors of the recorded vote – which always understate the Democratic True Vote. The LV polls anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 55.6% True Vote share and 381 electoral votes. Based on the historical record, Obama’s True Vote share is about 4-5% higher than the latest polls indicate. It is a certainty that he will lose millions of votes on Election Day to fraud.

The only question is: Will Obama be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

Forecast Summary

The source of the polling data is the Real Clear Politics (RCP) website. The simulation uses the latest state polls. Recorded 2008 vote shares are used for states which have not yet been polled.

2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model
``` 10/06/2012 UVA = undecided voter allocation = 50/50% True Vote Model Obama Romney True Vote...... 55.6% 44.4% (see model) Expected EV.... 381 157 EV = sum(state win prob (i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 Snapshot EV.... 391 147 Sum of state EV EV Win Prob.... 100% 0% ```

``` State Polls Average........ 48.3% 45.6% (state vote-weighted average) Projection..... 51.4% 48.6% (RCP Polls + UVA) Pop. Win Prob.. 81% 19% (3.0% MoE assumed for calculation) Expected EV.... 295.3 242.7 EV = sum(state win prob(i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 Snapshot EV.... 263 275 Sum of winning state electoral votes National Polls Average........ 48.3% 47.2% (RCP poll average) Projection..... 50.6% 49.4% (RCP polls + UVA) Pop. Win Prob.. 71% 29% (2.0% MoE assumed for calculation) Gallup......... 47% 47% (1387 RV, 3.0% MoE) Rasmussen...... 48% 48% (1500 LV, 3.0% MoE) ```

```Monte Carlo Simulation (500 Election trials) Projection..... 51.4% 48.6% (RCP state polls + UVA) Mean EV........ 296.3 241.7 (average of 500 election trials) Maximum EV..... 348 190 Minimum EV..... 240 298 EV Win Prob.... 89% 11% (445 wins/500 election trials) ```

2004 and 2008 Election Models

The 2004 model matched the unadjusted exit polls. Kerry had 51.7% and 337 electoral votes. But the election was stolen. Kerry had 48.3% recorded. View the 2004 Electoral and popular vote trend

The 2008 model exactly matched Obama’s 365 EV. The National model exactly matched his official recorded 52.9% share; the State model projected 53.1%. His official margin was 9.5 million votes.

Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted, weighted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) which exactly matched the post-election True Vote Model. Obama’s 23 million true vote vote margin was too big to steal.

The National Exit Poll displayed on mainstream media websites (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc.) indicates that Obama had 52.9% – his recorded vote. Unadjusted state and national exit polls are always forced to match the recorded share.

But the media never discussed the fact that Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents). View the 2008 Electoral and popular vote trend

In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average recorded vote by 48-46%. But they led both state and national exit polls by 52-42%. There were approximately 375,000 respondents in the 274 state polls and 90,000 respondents in the six national polls. Overall, an extremely low margin of error.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes.

The True Vote Model

The 2008 True Vote Model (TVM) determined that Obama won in a landslide by 58-40.3%. Based on the historical red-shift, he needs at least a 55% True Vote share to overcome the systemic 5% fraud factor. The TVM was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: Obama had an identical 58-40.5% margin (83,000 respondents). He won unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by an even bigger 61-37% margin.

In projecting the national vote, the TVM uses estimated returning 2008 voter turnout in 2012 and corresponding 2012 vote shares. The rates are applied to each state in order to derive the national aggregate result.

A 1.25% annual voter mortality rate is assumed. There are two options for estimating returning voters. The default option assumes that 2008 voters return in proportion to the unadjusted 2008 exit poll aggregate (Obama won by 58-40.5%).

It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. The 1988-2008 True Vote Model utilizes estimates of previous election returning and new voters and and adjusted state and national exit poll vote shares.

Sensitivity analysis

The TVM displays the effects of effects of incremental changes in turnout rates and shares of returning voters. Three tables each display nine scenario combinations of a) Obama and McCain turnout rates and b) Obama/Romney shares of returning Obama and McCain voters. Obama’s vote share, winning margin and popular vote win probability are displayed for each scenario.

Monte Carlo Simulation

The simulation consists of 500 election trials. The electoral vote win probability is the number of winning election trials divided by 500.

There are two forecast options in the model. The default option uses projections based on the latest pre-election state polls. The second is based on the state True Vote. The fraud factor is the difference between the two.

The projected vote share is the sum of the poll and the undecided voter allocation (UVA). The model uses state vote share projections as input to the Normal Distribution function to determine the state win probability.

In each election trial, a random number (RND) between 0 and 1 is generated for each state and compared to Obama’s state win probability. If RND is greater than the win probability, the Republican wins the state. If RND is less than the win probability, Obama wins the state. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 electoral votes. The process is repeated in 500 election trials.

The Electoral Vote is calculated in three ways.
1. The Snapshot EV is a simple summation of the electoral votes. It could be misleading if close state elections favor one candidate.
2. The Mean EV is the average of the 500 simulated election trials.
3. The Theoretical EV is the product sum of the state electoral votes and corresponding win probabilities. A simulation or meta-analysis is not required to calculate the expected EV.

The Mean EV approaches the Theoretical EV as the number of election trials increase. This is an illustration of the Law of Large Numbers.

Obama’s electoral vote win probability is his winning percentage of 500 simulated election trials.

The national popular vote win probability is calculated using the normal distribution using the national aggregate of the the projected vote shares. The national aggregate margin of error is 1-2% lower than the average MoE of the individual states. That is, if you believe the Law of Large Numbers and convergence to the mean.

The Fraud Factor

Election fraud reduced the 1988-2008 Democratic presidential unadjusted exit poll margin from 52-42% to 48-46%. View the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

The combination of True Vote Model and state poll-based Monte Carlo Simulation enables an analyst to determine if the forecast electoral and popular vote share estimates are plausible. The aggregate state poll shares can be compared to the default TVM.

The TVM can be forced to match the aggregate poll projection by…
– Adjusting vote shares by an incremental change. A red flag would be raised if the match required, if for example Obama captured 85% of returning Obama voters and Romney had 95% of returning McCain voters (a 10% net defection).

– Adjusting 2008 voter turnout in 2012. For example, if McCain voter turnout is required to be 10-15% higher than Obama’s, that would raise a red flag.

– Setting the returning voter option to the 2008 recorded vote. The implicit assumption is that the 2008 recorded vote was the True Vote. But the 2008 election was highly fraudulent. Therefore, model vote shares will closely match the likely voter polls.

Check the simulated, theoretical and snapshot electoral vote projections and corresponding win probabilities.

Election Model Projections

In 2004, Election Model forecasts were posted weekly using the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final Nov.1 forecast had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

2004 Election Model Graphs

In the 2006 midterms, the adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to match the House 52-46% Democratic margin. But the 120 Generic Poll Trend Model forecast that the Democrats would have a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted exit poll.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% recorded share. He won by 9.5 million votes. But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – even before undecided voters were allocated. The landslide was denied.

The post-election True Vote Model determined that Obama won by 23 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share matched the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

Exit pollsters and media pundits have never explained the massive 11% state exit poll margin discrepancy or the impossible 17% National Exit Poll discrepancy. If they did, they would surely claim that the discrepancies were due to reluctant Republican responders. But they will not even try to explain the impossible returning voter adjustments required to force the polls to match the recorded vote in the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 elections.

2008 Election Model Graphs

Pre-election RV and LV Polls

Virtually all early pre-election polls are of Registered Voters (RV). The Rasmussen tracking poll is an exception, using a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the full RV sample. Rasmussen is an admitted GOP pollster.

One month prior to the election, pollsters replace the full RV sample polls with LV sub-samples, helping to promote an artificial “horse race” as the poll shares invariably tighten. The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) effectively understates the voter turnout of millions of new Democrats, increasing the projected Republican share. Democrats always do better in the full RV polls than the LVs.

Media pundits and pollsters are paid to project the recorded vote – not the True Vote. The closer they are, the better they look. But they never mention the fraud factor which gets them there. They prepare for it by switching to LV polls which are usually excellent predictors of the recorded vote.

Historically, RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls after undecided voters are allocated and have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The disinformation loop is closed when the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls are adjusted to match the LV recorded vote prediction.

In pre-election and exit polls:
1) The Likely Voter Cutoff Model eliminates newly registered Democrats from the LV sub-sample. Kerry had 57-61% of new voters; Obama had 72%.
2) Exit poll precincts are partially selected based on the previous election recorded vote.
3) In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 226 of 274 exit polls red-shifted" to the Republicans. Only about 137 would normally be expected to red-shift. The probability is zero.
4) 126 of the 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error. Only 14 (5%) would normally be expected. The probability is ZERO.
5) 123 of the 126 exit polls that exceeded the margin of error red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability is ZERO.

Posted by on October 7, 2012 in 2012 Election

## Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Why Do All Election Forecasters, Political Scientists, Academics and Media Pundits Avoid the Systemic Fraud Factor?

Richard Charnin
Updated: August 26, 2013

It’s about time that the so-called experts who promote overly complex or overly simplistic pre and post election models started to apply the scientific method. They need to do a robust probability and statistical analysis, including the election fraud factor in historical regression factor analyses and polling models.

Election forecasters and political scientists implicitly assume that the recorded vote is equal to the True Vote; they never consider Systemic Election Fraud. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote. The proof is simple and self-explanatory. According to the US Census, there were 80 million more votes cast then recorded in the 1968-2008 presidential elections. The uncounted votes were a combination of spoiled, provisional and absentee ballots. And the vast majority (70-80%) of them were, not surprisingly, Democratic. Therefore, the recorded vote has never represented the will of the electorate. And the historical election data that is accepted as conventional wisdom is based on uncounted and miscounted votes.

Media pundits and political scientists never question the unscientific and faith-based practice of forcing the exit polls to match the recorded votes. Even when the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

Historical evidence indicates that since 1988, Democratic presidential vote shares are always reduced by 3-5%. The Democrats won the average unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a massive 52-42% margin, but their recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The True Vote Model confirms the exit polls. The TVM indicates that they won by 53-41%. There were comparable deviations in senate, congressional and gubernatorial elections.

Unadjusted exit poll and recorded vote data is provided in 1988-2008 State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls. The data source is the Roper UConn Center site.

Prior to 2004 the exit poll discrepancies were primarily due to uncounted ballots in heavily Democratic districts. But the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) resulted in the installation of thousands of unverifiable, proprietary voting machines vulnerable to computer hacking and malicious coding.

It is often stated that exit polls were accurate in elections prior to 2004 and have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a canard. State and national UNADJUSTED EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS ADJUSTED to match the RECORDED vote. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

RECORDED votes have deviated sharply from the UNADJUSTED exit polls (and the TRUE VOTE) in EVERY election since 1968. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been quite accurate to within a 1-2% margin of error and closely matched the True Vote Model in each of the 1988-2008 elections. The reason FINAL state and national exit poll matched the RECORDED vote was because they were FORCED to do so. It’s standard policy on the part of the pollsters. But the recorded vote has NEVER reflected true voter intent due to UNCOUNTED and STUFFED ballots and MALICIOUSLY programmed electronic voting machines.

Let’s see how the 2004 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. Kerry won the state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5% (3.6% margin). The NEP was adjusted to match the recorded vote by assuming nearly 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004.

Here is the proof: The 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) is a subset of the state polls. The unadjusted NEP showed that Kerry won by a 4.8% margin. Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million died, so at most there were 48 million returning Bush voters – but not all returned to vote. Assuming 98% of living Bush 2000 voters turned out in 2004, then there were 47 million returning Bush voters (38.4% of 122.3 million 2004 voters). But according to the adjusted NEP, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters (43% of the voters).

There is a major disconnect here; we have just shown that there were approximately 47 million. So where did the 5.6 (52.6-47) million Bush voters come from? The bottom line: In order to adjust the National Exit Poll to conform to the recorded vote, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. Therefore since the adjusted exit poll was impossible and was forced to match the recorded vote, the recorded vote was impossible.

```UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS) 13660.. Kerry Bush...Other Sample 7,064 6,414 182 Share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33% ```
UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other

DNV. 23,116 18.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48,248 38.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49,670 39.5% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4,703 3.70% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125,737 100% 51.75% 46.79% 1.46%
Votes 125,737 100% 65,070 58,829 1,838

2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL (12:22am vote shares)
(returning voters based on 2000 True Vote)
2000 Turnout 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 3.10% 64% 17% 19%
Share 125,737 100% 53.57% 45.07% 1.36%
Votes 125,737 100% 67,362 56,666 1,709

(impossible 110% Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV. 20,790 17.0% 54% 44% 2% – –
Gore 45,249 37.0% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93%
Bush 52,586 43.0% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110% impossible
Other 3,669 3.00% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Share 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00%
Votes 122,294 100% 59,031 62,040 1,223

Let’s now consider how two National Exit Poll categories were adjusted to match the recorded vote.
1) Bush Approval – Eleven (11) final national pre-election polls gave Bush a 48% approval rating. The unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) indicated that 50.3% approved. But in the adjusted Final National Exit Poll, Bush approval was increased to 53% to force a match to the recorded vote.

2) Party-ID – The unadjusted state exit polls indicated a 38.8-35.1-26.1% Dem/Rep/Ind split. The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll had an impossible 37-37-26%. Consider that in 2000, the Party ID split was 39-35-26%. But the vast majority of new 2004 voters were Democrats. The 37-37-26% was a fudge to force a match to the recorded vote.

This graph shows a near-perfect correlation between Bush’s 2004 unadjusted state exit poll vote shares, approval ratings and Party-ID:
2004 Correlation Analysis

The Ultimate Smoking Gun

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 135 of 274 unadjusted state exit polls exceeded the margin of error. The probability is ZERO. The largest discrepancies occurred in 2008 (the MoE was exceeded in 37 states). Of the 135 exit polls that exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability that this was a random occurrence is ZERO. The one-sided red shift from the exit polls to the vote is proof beyond any doubt of systemic election fraud.

The 1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model (TVM)

The TVM allows one to run scenarios over a range of assumptions of prior election voter turnout in the current election and incremental changes in current election (NEP) vote shares:
1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model

Pre-election Likely Voter Polls

The experts and pundits claim that likely voter (LV) pre-election polls have been very accurate in matching the recorded vote. But they don’t tell you that votes are miscounted in every election. Or that their predictions failed to include the majority of newly registered Democratic voters who did not pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) screen.

They also claim that registered voter polls (RV) don’t reflect actual voter turnout. That is only partially true; not all registered voters turn out. But they don’t tell you that predictions based on RV polls (after allocating undecided voters) closely matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

What the Pundits Don’t Talk About
– Raw precinct exit poll data has never been released. Voter confidentiality is a non-issue.
– Exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote even if the adjustments (i.e. returning voter mix) are physically and mathematically impossible.
– 19 states are no longer exit polled.
– Democrats won the unadjusted 1988-2008 exit polls by 52-42% – and the recorded vote by 48-46%
– 232 of 274 state presidential exit polls red-shifted to the GOP in 1988-2008
– 135 of 274 exit polls exceeded the MoE. Probability ZERO (14 expected).
– 131 of the 135 red-shifted to the GOP. Probability ZERO E-116
– Voting machines are rigged to switch votes with proprietary coding.
– 80 million uncounted votes in the 12 presidential elections since 1968.
– 11 million uncounted votes in 1988 may have cost Dukakis the election.
– 6 million uncounted votes cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
– Unadjusted exit polls show that the 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
– 2004 NEP required 6 million phantom Bush 2000 voters (110% turnout).
– Democratic landslides were denied in 2006, 2008, 2012.
– Obama had 61% in the 2008 unadjusted National Exit Poll and a 52.9% recorded vote.
– Obama had 58% in the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and a 58% True Vote.
– In 2012, Obama led 50.3-48% on Election Day (117 million votes); he won 12 million late paper ballot votes by 58-38%. Votes were stolen on voting machines.
– Senate and Governor races were likely stolen in 2010.
– Corporate Media never reports on documented evidence of Election Fraud,
– Media pundits only discuss non-existent Voter Fraud.
– The LV subset of RV pre-election polls always understates the Democratic vote.

But they talk about voter suppression as if it is the only problem that needs to be addressed.
Demographic trends based on bogus, adjusted NEP crosstabs which all understate the Democratic vote.

They claim that in the 2006 midterms, the Democrats won the House by 52-46% (230-205 seats). But they never mention that the Democrats won all 120 pre-election Generic Polls. The trend line predicted a 56.4% share – exactly matching the unadjusted National Exit Poll. Approximately 20 House seats were stolen (primarily in FL, OH, NM and IL). The landslide was denied.

They claim that the 2008 pre-election LV polls predicted Obama’s 52.9-45.6% recorded share – a 9.5 million vote margin. But they don’t tell you that RV polls projected that he would win by 57-41%. Or that he had a 58.0% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate share – a 22 million vote margin. Or that he had a massive 61% in the unadjusted NEP (17836 respondents).

They don’t mention that in order to match the recorded vote, the Final 2008 NEP required a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters – or 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Or that the Final indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – even though only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

```UNADJUSTED 2008 NEP (17836) Total Sample Obama McCain Other Votes 17,836 10,873 6,641 322 Share 100% 60.96% 37.23% 1.81% ```

(exact match to TVM & unadjusted state exit polls)
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 43.4% 89.0% 9.0% 2.0%
Bush 44.6% 50.8 38.6% 17.0% 82.0% 1.0%
Other 5.20% 5.90 4.50% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100.0% 58.0% 40.3% 1.7%
Votes 100% 131.5 131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

2008 TRUE VOTE MODEL
(returning voters based on 2004 True Vote)
Voted 2004 2008
2004 Implied 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. 1.0% 1.20 0.90% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Votes 100% 131.5 131.5 76.2 53.2 2.1

(forced to match recorded vote; impossible no. returning Bush voters)
Voted 2004 2008
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other

DNV ….. 17.2 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. 4.6% 5.3 4.00% 72.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Total 100% 131.5 100.0% 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%
Votes 100% 131.5 100% 69.5 59.9 2.0

They fail to question the 2010 midterms. The Democrats easily won the unadjusted Governor exit polls in Florida and Ohio – but lost the elections. Giannoulias won the Illinois Senate exit poll – and lost the election. Sestak lost in Pennsylvania after leading in the exit polls.

They never discuss the evidence which proves that Obama’s 2008 True Vote was reduced by a 5% fraud factor. Considering that the 1988-2008 average Democratic True Vote margin was reduced from 10% to 2% by election fraud, Obama needs 55% just to break even in 2012. He needs another landslide to overcome the fraud factor.

What the Pundits should be doing
– Employ reasonable forecast assumptions using both RV and LV polls.
– Indicate that LV polls are a subset of RV polls.
– Note the Likely Voter Cutoff Model’s built-in bias against new voters.
– Allocate undecided and uncounted votes.
– Use voter mortality rates before estimating new and returning voter turnout.
– Use correlation analysis: exit polls, approval ratings, Party-ID.
– Question why exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.
– Question why the NEP indicates more returning voters than are living.

Historical Overview

– In 1988, Dukakis won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (11,645 respondents) by 49.6-48.4% (11,645 respondents). He won the exit polls in the battleground states by 51.6-47.3%. But Bush won by 7 million recorded votes. There were 11 million mostly Democratic uncounted votes.

– In 1992, Clinton won the unadjusted state exit polls (54,000 respondents) by 18 million votes (47.6-31.7%). He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (15,000 respondents)by 46.3-33.4%. He had 51% in the True Vote Model (TVM). But his recorded margin was just 5.6 million (43.0-37.5%). The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. It implied a 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

– In 1996, Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls (70,000 respondents) by 16 million votes (52.6-37.1%). His recorded margin was 8 million (49.2-40.8%). He had 53.6% in the TVM. The Final National Exit Poll (NEP) was forced to match the recorded vote. There were 10 million uncounted votes. The landslide was denied.

– In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 6 million votes (50.8-44.4%). He had 51.5% in the TVM. He won the recorded vote by just 540,000. There were 6 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen.

– In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents) by 51.1-47.5%. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million vote margin. He had 53.6%, a 10 million vote margin, in the True Vote Model But he lost by 3.0 million recorded votes. There were 4 million uncounted votes. The election was stolen.

To Believe Bush Won Fairly You Must Believe…

– In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents) by 58.0-40.3%, a 23 million vote margin – a near-exact match to the TVM. He won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) by a whopping 61-37%. Officially, he had 52.9% and won by 9.5 million votes. The landslide was denied.

2004 Election Model Graphs

Posted by on November 22, 2011 in Media

## Election Fraud Lockdown: No Discussion by Politicians, Forecasters and Media Pundits

Election Fraud Lockdown: No Discussion by Politicians, Forecasters and Media Pundits

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Election forecasters measure their performance against the recorded vote. But there is a fundamental flaw in their models: Election Fraud is never mentioned as a factor. The implicit assumption is that the official recorded vote represents the True Vote (i.e. election will be fraud-free). But it cannot be since we know that millions of votes are uncounted in every election.

The forecasters disregard the Systemic Election Fraud Factor.
Recorded Vote = True Vote + Election Fraud

Forecasters who predicted a Bush win in 2000 and 2004 were only “correct” because of rigged recorded vote counts. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000; he won the True Vote by 3 million. Kerry lost the recorded vote by 3 million; he won the True Vote by 10 million. The pattern continued in 2008. Obama won the recorded vote by 9.5 million; he won the True Vote by nearly 23 million.

This graph summarizes the discrepancies between the1988-2008 State Exit Polls vs. the corresponding Recorded Votes

In 2004, Kerry had a slight 1% lead in the weighted pre-election state and national polls. After allocating the 6% undecided voters, he was projected to win by 51.4-47.7%. Kerry had 51.7% in both the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (70,000 respondents) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll, a subset of 13,660 respondents.

The 2004 Election True Vote Model is based on 2000 votes cast (includes uncounted votes), adjusted for voter mortality and 2000 voter turnout in 2004. Vote shares are based on the 2004 National Exit Poll “Voted 2000” crosstab. The model indicates that Kerry won by 53.2-45.4% (66.9-57.1m). It proves that for Bush to obtain his 3.0m margin in 2004, he would have required 21.5% of returning Gore voters!

Bush won the official recorded vote by 50.7-48.4%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

In 2008, the national aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls (81,388 respondents, weighted by voting population) indicated that Obama won by 58.0-40.2%. There is a 97.5% probability that he had at least 57.5% (assuming an unbiased sample).

The unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) is a subset of the state polls. Obama won by a massive 61.0-37.2% margin. The probability is 97.5% that he had at least 60% (assuming an unbiased sample).

The 2008 True Vote Model is based on 2004 votes cast and the 2008 NEP “Voted 2004” crosstab. It indicates that Obama won by 58.0-40.5%.

Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6%. The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

Prominent election forecasters discussed their methodologies in the International Journal of Forecasting. The articles range from descriptions of diverse election forecasting models, such as those that use political futures markets and historical analysis, to those which evaluate the success of election forecasting in past elections. But none mention the taboo subject of historical election fraud. Are they that clueless? Or are they fearful of jeopardizing their positions by daring to suggest that our “democracy” is a myth?

This statement is from the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR):
“What is important to note is that at the close of Election Day, exit poll results are weighted to reflect the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did. That is, exit polls are just as important for the information they gather about the voters’ demographics and attitudinal predispositions towards the candidates and the campaign issues as they are for making the projections reported by news organizations on Election Night”.

So the purpose of the final exit poll is to get accurate demographic data by matching to the actual vote count. Is this the way to conduct statistical research, by adjusting the results to fit the recorded vote? What if the vote count is corrupted? They never even ask the question. The charade continues unabated.

Uncounted votes have steadily declined as percent of total votes cast – from 10.4% in 1988 to 2.7% in 2004. When added to the recorded vote in order to derive total votes cast from 1988-2004, the average Democratic unadjusted exit poll share was within 1% of the adjusted vote. But the 2004 exit poll discrepancies were different in kind and scope from the prior elections; the discrepancies cannot be explained by uncounted votes alone.

. Election 2004 Forecast Models: The Track Record
. The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)
. Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Discrepancies (1988-2004)
. Projection and Post-election Models: Monte Carlo Simulation vs. Regression Analysis
. Implausible: Returning Gore voters required for Bush’s 3.0m margin in 2004

___________________________________________________________________________________

Election 2004 Forecast Models: The Track Record

The following election forecast models were executed 2-9 months before the 2004 election. All except one forecast that Bush would win the 2-party popular vote with an average 53.9% share. Bush had a 51.2% recorded share, but just 47.5% according to the aggregate unadjusted state exit polls. Furthermore, the estimated popular vote win probabilities were incompatible with the forecast vote shares (they were too low). None of the models forecast the electoral vote. None mentioned the possibility of election fraud.

Author Date Pick 2-pty Win Prob
Recorded 2-Nov Bush 51.2 Final

Beck-Tien 27-Aug Kerry 50.1 50
Abramowitz 31-Jul Bush 53.7 –
Campbell 06-Sep Bush 53.8 97
Wlezien 27-Jul Bush 52.9 75
Holbrook 30-Aug Bush 54.5 92
Lockabie 21-May Bush 57.6 92
Norpoth 29-Jan Bush 54.7 95

Compare the above projections to these pre-election poll and exit poll-based models.

Election Model (11/01/04)
Assumption: Kerry wins 75% of undecided voters
Kerry 51.8%; 99.9% win probability
Monte Carlo EV Simulation: 4995 wins/5000 trials

Final 5 National Polls: Kerry 51.6%; 94.5% win probability
2004 Election Model Graphs
National Trend
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image001.png
Electoral vote and win probability
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image002.png
Electoral and popular vote
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image003.png
Undecided voter allocation impact on electoral vote and win probability
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image004.png
National Poll Trend
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image008.png
Monte Carlo Simulation
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image011.png
Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Histogram
http://www.richardcharnin.com/index_files/ElectionModel_9609_image012.png

Unadjusted State Exit Polls (70,000 respondents)
State Aggregate: Kerry 52.5%; 99.1% win prob.

National Exit Poll (12:22am, 13,047 respondents)
NEP 1: Kerry 51.9%; 96.9% win prob
39/41 Gore/Bush weights

NEP 2: Kerry 52.9%; 99.8% win prob.

True Vote Model
Kerry 53.7%; 99.99% win prob.
12:22am NEP, 125.7m votes cast; 1.22% annual voter mortality, 95% voter turnout

The following article describes the methodologies used by a number of 2008 election forecasters. None of the articles discuss historical evidence of election fraud or its likely impact on the forecast.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Election Forecasters Preparing for Historic Election

Science Daily (June 23, 2008) — Anticipating what is likely to be one of the most interesting elections in modern history, University at Buffalo professor of political science James E. Campbell and Michael S. Lewis-Beck, professor of political science at the University of Iowa, have assembled the insights of prominent election forecasters in a special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting published this month.

Each of the articles demonstrates the challenges of election forecasting, according to Campbell, chair of UB’s Department of Political Science, who since 1992 has produced a trial-heat-and-economy forecast of the U.S. presidential election. His forecast uses the second-quarter growth rate in the gross domestic product and results of the trial-heat (preference) poll released by Gallup near Labor Day to predict what percentage of the popular vote will be received by the major party candidates.

The articles range from descriptions of diverse election forecasting models, such as those that use political futures markets and historical analysis, to articles that evaluate the success of election forecasting in past elections. Two of the articles address a topic particularly pertinent to the 2008 presidential election: whether open seat and incumbent elections should be treated differently by election forecasters.

“One of the biggest misunderstandings about election forecasting is the idea that accurate forecasts must assume that the campaign does not matter,” Campbell explains. “This is not true. First, one of the reasons that forecasts can be accurate is that they are based on measures of the conditions that influence campaigns. So campaign effects are, to a significant degree, predictable. Second, forecasters know that their forecasts are not perfect. Forecasts are based on imperfect measures and may not capture all of the factors affecting a campaign. Some portion of campaign effects is always unpredictable.”

Though some campaign effects are unpredictable “the extent of these effects is usually limited,” Campbell points out. In the historic contest between presumptive presidential nomineesBarack Obama and John McCain one thing is certain: “Forecasting this election will be more difficult than usual,” Campbell says: “First, there isn’t an incumbent. Approval ratings and the economy are likely to provide weaker clues to an election’s outcome when the incumbent is not running. Second, Democrats had a very divided nomination contest and it is unclear how lasting the divisions will be. Third, many Republicans are not very enthusiastic about McCain and it is unclear how strong Republican turnout will be for him.”

Of the six different forecast models described in the journal articles, only two have a forecast at this point. The other four will have forecasts between late July and Labor Day. The journal articles can be downloaded at sciencedirect.com. Below are brief descriptions:

In “U.S. Presidential Election Forecasting: An Introduction” journal co-editors Campbell and Lewis-Beck provide a brief history of the development of the election forecasting field and an overview of the articles in this special issue.

In “Forecasting the Presidential Primary Vote: Viability, Ideology and Momentum,” Wayne P. Steger of DePaul University takes on the difficult task of improving on forecasting models of presidential nominations. He focuses on the forecast of the primary vote in contests where the incumbent president is not a candidate, comparing models using information from before the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary to those taking these momentum-inducing events into account.

In “It’s About Time: Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Alan I. Abramowitz of Emory University updates his referenda theory-based “time for a change” election forecasting model first published in 1988. Specifically, his model forecasts the two-party division of the national popular vote for the in-party candidate based on presidential approval in June, economic growth in the first half of the election year, and whether the president’s party is seeking more than a second consecutive term in office.

In “The Economy and the Presidential Vote: What the Leading Indicators Reveal Well in Advance,” Robert S. Erikson of Columbia University and Christopher Wlezien of Temple University ask what is the preferred economic measure in election forecasting and what is the optimal time before the election to issue a forecast.

In “Forecasting Presidential Elections: When to Change the Model?” Michael S. Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa and Charles Tien of Hunter College, CUNY ask whether the addition of variables can genuinely reduce forecasting error, as opposed to merely boosting statistical fit by chance. They explore the evolution of their core model – presidential vote as a function GNP growth and presidential popularity. They compare it to a more complex, “jobs” model they have developed over the years.

In “Forecasting Non-Incumbent Presidential Elections: Lessons Learned from the 2000 Election,” Andrew H. Sidman, Maxwell Mak, and Matthew J. Lebo of Stony Brook University use a Bayesian Model Averaging approach to the question of whether economic influences have a muted impact on elections without an incumbent as a candidate. The Sidman team concludes that a discount of economic influences actually weakens general forecasting performance.

In “Evaluating U.S. Presidential Election Forecasts and Forecasting Equations,” UB’s Campbell responds to critics of election forecasting by identifying the theoretical foundations of forecasting models and offering a reasonable set of benchmarks for assessing forecast accuracy. Campbell’s analyses of his trial-heat and economy forecasting model and of Abramowitz’s “time for a change” model indicates that it is still at least an open question as to whether models should be revised to reflect more muted referendum effects in open seat or non-incumbent elections.

In “Campaign Trial Heats as Election Forecasts: Measurement Error and Bias in 2004 Presidential Campaign Polls,” Mark Pickup of Oxford University and Richard Johnston of theUniversity of Pennsylvania provide an assessment of polls as forecasts. Comparing various sophisticated methods for assessing overall systematic bias in polling on the 2004 U.S.presidential election, Johnston and Pickup show that three polling houses had large and significant biases in their preference polls.

In “Prediction Market Accuracy in the Long Run,” Joyce E. Berg, Forrest D. Nelson, and Thomas A. Reitz from the University of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business, compare the presidential election forecasts produced from the Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) to forecasts from an exhaustive body of opinion polls. Their finding is that the IEM is usually more accurate than the polls.

In “The Keys to the White House: An Index Forecast for 2008,” Allan J. Lichtman of American University provides an historian’s checklist of 13 conditions that together forecast the presidential contest. These “keys” are a set of “yes or no” questions about how the president’s party has been doing and the circumstances surrounding the election. If fewer than six keys are turned against the in-party, it is predicted to win the election. If six or more keys are turned, the in-party is predicted to lose. Lichtman notes that this rule correctly predicted the winner in every race since 1984.

In “The State of Presidential Election Forecasting: The 2004 Experience,” Randall J. Jones, Jr. reviews the accuracy of all of the major approaches used in forecasting the 2004 presidential election. In addition to examining campaign polls, trading markets, and regression models, he examines the records of Delphi expert surveys, bellwether states, and probability models.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)

This paragraph from the article says it all:
“What is important to note is that at the close of Election Day, exit poll results are weighted to reflect the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did. That is, exit polls are just as important for the information they gather about the voters’ demographics and attitudinal predispositions towards the candidates and the campaign issues as they are for making the projections reported by news organizations on Election Night”.

The purpose of the Final exit poll is to get accurate demographic data by matching to the actual vote count? Is this the way to conduct statistical research? What if the vote count is fraudulent? What is their Null Hypothesis? AAPOR refers to challenges facing exit pollsters, but they ignore the challenge of calculating the impact of election fraud on the recorded vote.

If the vote counts were accurate, the demographics would be correct. Since the recorded vote counts are bogus, so are the demographics. Assuming that the vote count is pristine is to immediately invalidate the demographics on which it is based. It’s a very simple concept if you really want to do the best analysis possible to get at the truth: It’s Basic Statistics 101.We need to analyze the raw, pristine, unadjusted exit poll data. One would assume that this august group would want to see it. But in their world, corruption is non-existent. They believe that the Recorded Vote is identical to the True Vote.

AAPOR also claims that: “An exit poll sample is not representative of the entire electorate until the survey is completed at the end of the day. Different types of voters turn out at different times of the day”. But they don’t mention the fact that Kerry led the exit polls from 4pm (8349 sampled voters) to 730pm (11027) and 1222am (13047) by a steady 51-47%. Or that uncounted votes are 70-80% Democratic and contribute significantly to the exit poll discrepancies.

AAPOR parrots the Reluctant Bush Responder (rBr) myth used by exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky: “In recent national and state elections, Republicans have declined to fill out an exit poll questionnaire at a higher rate than Democratic voters, producing a slight Democratic skew”. But the 2004 Final Exit Poll indicated that Bush 2000 voters comprised 43% of the 2004 electorate (which was mathematically impossible) as opposed to 37% of Gore voters. And according to the E-M report, the highest exit poll refusal rates were in Democratic states. So much for the rBr myth.

___________________________________________________________________________________

1988-2004: Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll discrepancies

Uncounted Votes have steadily declined as a percent of total votes cast – from 10.4% in 1988 to 2.7% in 2004. When added to the recorded vote in order to derive the total votes cast for the five elections from 1988-2004, the average Democratic unadjusted exit poll share is within 0.1% of the adjusted vote.

Comparing the adjusted vote to the aggregate exit poll and recorded vote (2-party exit poll in parenthesis):

Year Democrat Recorded Exit Poll Adjusted
Average share 46.9% 48.8% (52.7%) 48.9%

1988 Dukakis 45.6 46.8 (47.3) 48.7
1992 Clinton 43.0 45.7 (56.8) 45.7
1996 Clinton 49.2 50.2 (55.8) 51.4
2000 Gore 48.4 49.4 (51.4) 49.7
2004 Kerry 48.3 51.8 (52.3) 49.0

Look at this graph. In each of the last five elections the unadjusted Democratic exit poll share exceeded the recorded vote. But which of the five stands out from the rest? The 2004 exit poll discrepancies were different in kind and scope from those of the prior four elections. Unlike 1988-2000, the 2004 discrepancies cannot be explained by uncounted votes alone.

There are some exit poll critics who claim that the large (5.4 WPE) 1992 exit poll discrepancy proves that 2004 exit poll analysis (7.1 WPE) which indicate that the election was stolen are “crap” and “bad science”. After all, they say, there were no allegations of fraud in 1992. They fail to mention (or are unaware of) the fact that in 1992 Clinton beat Bush I by a recorded 43.6-38.0m (43.0-37.4%) but 9.4m votes were uncounted – and 70-80% were Democratic. When the uncounted votes are added, the adjusted vote becomes 50.7-40.3m (45.7-36.4%), which exactly matched Clinton’s unadjusted exit poll.

From 1988-2000, after the uncounted adjustment, there was a 0.85% average Democratic exit poll discrepancy and 2.9 WPE. In 2004, after the 3.4m uncounted vote adjustment, there was a 2.8% discrepancy and Bush’s margin was reduced from 3.0m (62.0-59.0) to 1.3m (62.9-61.6). But uncounted votes were only one component of Election Fraud 2004. The Election Calculator Model determined that approximately 5m votes were switched from Kerry to Bush.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Projection and Post-election Models: Monte Carlo Simulation vs. Regression Analysis

There are two basic methods used to forecast presidential elections:
1) Projections based on state and national polling trends which forecast the popular and electoral vote, updated frequently right up to the election.
2) Regression models based on historical time-series which forecast the popular vote, executed months before the election.

Polling models when adjusted for undecided voters and estimated turnout, are superior to regression models. Models which predicted a Bush win in 2000 and 2004 were technically “correct”; Bush won the recorded vote. But Gore and Kerry won the True vote. Except for the Election Calculator (below), all models assume that elections will be fraud-free.

Academics and political scientists create multiple regression models which utilize time-series data as relevant input variables: economic growth, inflation, job growth, interest rates, foreign policy, historical election vote shares, etc. Regression modeling is an interesting theoretical exercise but does not account for the daily events which affect voter psychology. Fraud could conceivably skew regression models and media tracking polls.

Statistical analyses provided by Internet bloggers concluded that BushCo stole the 2004 election. Their findings were dismissed by the media as “just another conspiracy theory”. A few “conspiracy fraudsters” were banned after posting on various liberal discussion forums. And even today, the most popular polling sites never discuss election fraud. But the Democrats haven’t raised the issue after two presidential and scores of congressional and gubernatorial elections were stolen, and neither has the media, supposedly the guardian of democracy. Is there anyone who still truly believes that elections are legitimate?

There has been much misinformation regarding electoral and popular vote win probability calculations. In the Election Model, the latest state pre-election poll are used to project the vote after adjusting for undecided voters. The model assumes the election is held on the day of the projection.

The projections determine the probability of winning each state for input to the simulation. The probability of winning the popular vote is based on the 2-party projected vote share and an estimated margin of error:
P = NORMDIST (vote share, 0.50, MoE/1.96, True).

The expected electoral vote is the average of all the election trials. The probability of capturing at least 270 electoral votes is a simple ratio of the number of winning trials divided by the total number of trials.

Posted by on October 31, 2011 in Election Myths

## Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

April 8, 2012

This is an updated response to Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ, written in 2006. It is a summary version of the original which includes 2008 election results. This is the original Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

Mark Lindeman is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bard College, NY. He wrote Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism to refute the argument that elections are systemically fraudulent and that exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. http://www.marklindeman.org/beyond-epf.pdf

Lindeman was also refuted by mathematician Kathy Dopp of the National Election Data Archive: http://electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/OH/2004Election/Mark-Lindeman-Response.pdf

Since the last update, unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls have been made available on the Roper UConn site. I created a spreadsheet database of 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national presidential exit polls. It contains detailed polling and recorded vote statistics organized for each election in separate worksheets. Graphics and tabular analysis worksheets were also included.

The data shows a consistent pattern of massive one-sided state and national exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote and further debunks the arguments presented by Lindeman in the original TIA FAQ.

For example, the Democrats won the 1988-2008 state unadjusted exit polls and the National Exit Polls by an identical 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. The 8% average margin discrepancy is much bigger than we had been led to believe by the exit pollsters prior to the Roper listing. The 7% exit poll discrepancy in 2004 was not unique. In fact, 2008 was much worse. The aggregate state exit poll discrepancy was 11%; the National Exit Poll a whopping 17%.

In every election, the data shows that the final, official National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with no change in the number of unadjusted exit poll respondents.

Before the Roper data became available, I created the 1988-2008 Presidential True Vote Model. The unadjusted exit polls closely matched and confirmed the model. Note that unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote do not include disenfranchised voters, the great majority of whom are Democratic minorities.

I wrote two books on election fraud analysis: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing-Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts and Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

Voters today are much more aware of systemic election fraud than they were in 2004. In that election, the mainstream media hoodwinked millions into believing that Bush won a three million vote “mandate”. The media prepares the scam with Likey Voter pre-election polls that are biased in favor of the GOP. After the election, the National Election Pool (NEP) exit pollsters adjust the numbers in order to match the (bogus) recorded votes with adjustments that are mathematically impossible. See the 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the lock down on serious election fraud analysis proves media complicity.

For example, consider the media myth that the 2000 election was close. Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But he led the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. He also led in the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%. The exit polls confirmed the True Vote Model – and vice-versa.

Bush stole Florida and the election by 537 official votes. But pre-election and unadjusted exit polls indicated that Gore easily won the state. There were at least 185,000 spoiled, uncounted ballots (underpunched and overpunched). Gore had at least 110,000 votes – a minimum 40,000 margin.

Serious election researchers agree that the 2004 election was stolen. Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide is a complete analysis of the 2004 election.

In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of congress, but the unadjusted exit polls (56.4%) indicate they did much better than the official 53%. The statistical evidence indicates that election fraud cut the 12% Democratic landslide margin in half, costing them 10-20 House seats. The landslide was denied.

In 2008, Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes with a 52.9% share. But the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (82,000 respondents) indicate that he had 58.0%. He had a whopping 61% share in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents).

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible returning 2004 voter mix and used the published National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares: Obama had 58.0% and won by 23 million votes. The landslide was denied.

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ – Updated for 2008

Mark Lindeman wrote the TruthIsAll FAQ in late 2006. Mark has been posting non-stop since 2005 trying to debunk the work of scores of independent election analysts who cite pre-election and exit polls as powerful evidence that Kerry easily won the True Vote in 2004 and that the 2006 Democratic landslide was denied by election fraud.

Mark posts as “On the Other Hand” on the Democratic Underground and “Hudson Valley Mark” on Daily Kos (as well as on numerous other forums). He quickly responds to posts that analyze pre-election and exit polls – and invariably attempts to debunk them if they are presented as indicators of election fraud. But it’s a good thing that Mark wrote the FAQ. By doing so, he provides a snapshot summary of the polling debates which are still taking place on various election forums. And the TIA FAQ provides a forum for presenting new and updated evidence of systemic election fraud based on pre-election and post-election polling analysis.

In June 2006 Farhad Manjoo, writing in Salon, wrote a hit piece rebuttal to the RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Farhad claimed to have consulted with Lindeman as a primary adviser in writing the piece. The article was immediately debunked by a number of well-respected election researchers. They noticed a number of statistical and logical errors.

In January 2007, I wrote the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ along with a detailed statistical analysis.

The 2006 and 2008 election results confirmed that the 2004 election was indeed a Kerry landslide and that Gore won by much more than the recorded 540,000 vote margin. And this was long before the Roper UConn release of the unadjusted exit polls which provided a conclusive confirmation.

That is what the evidence shows, regardless of whether or not it is ever discussed in the media. Statistical analysts and political scientists who have looked at the evidence must be well aware of the systemic fraud, but job security and unwillingness of Democratic politicians and the mainstream media to discuss the issue are strong incentives to perpetuate the ongoing myth that historical election results have been accurate. Only a handful of liberal bloggers have even touched on the subject. A number of books have been written which show that massive fraud in the form of voter disenfranchisement and vote miscounts occurred in 2000-2008. Not one book has been written to prove that Bush won in 2004.

For brevity, I have abbreviated Lindeman’s comments and my responses to the questions posed in the original FAQ but have added references to the 2008 election.
___________________________________________________________________________

A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ
by Mark Lindeman

TruthIsAll (TIA) is the pseudonym of a former Democratic Underground (DU) regular who now posts elsewhere. Many of his writings are available at truthisall.net TIA argues, among other things, that the 2004 U.S. presidential pre-election polls and the exit polls both indicate that John Kerry won the election.

Who is TruthIsAll (TIA) and why do you care what he says?

ML
I don’t know who he is. Apparently he has worked in quantitative analysis for many years; he has described himself as an “Excel expert.” His allegations of election fraud — in particular, his enumeration of (presumably far-fetched) things one must believe in order to believe that Bush won the 2004 election — formed the template for the 2005 Project Censored story making the same case.

Many people believe that TIA’s arguments irrefutably demonstrate that John Kerry won the popular vote and the election. Many more people believe that TIA’s arguments have no merit whatsoever, and therefore don’t bother to try to refute them. I do not like to see weak arguments go unchallenged. (But plenty of people have criticized TIA’s arguments — I make no claim to originality.)

I also think that these particular weak arguments lead to poor political judgments. If TruthIsAll is right, it follows that the 2004 election was obviously stolen. So, one might conclude, among other things, that (1) most voters preferred Kerry to Bush, (2) Democratic political leaders are effectively complicit in a cover-up, and (3) Democrats cannot win crucial elections until and unless the current voting systems are thrown out. I disagree with all of these conclusions.

(Now that the Democrats have won House and Senate majorities in the 2006 election, argument #3 must be modulated. Fraud-minded observers now often argue that the Republicans stole some votes and even some seats, but that either for some reason they could not — or did not dare? — steal enough votes, or that they had to decide how many votes to steal several weeks in advance, and were caught flat-footed by a late Democratic surge. As I address on the Miscellaneous page, I have seen no convincing evidence of widespread vote miscount.

OK, so what are TIA’s arguments?

ML
He has many posts, but many of them make these basic claims:
Pre-election polls (both state and national) gave Kerry better than a 99% chance of winning the election.

Well-established political generalizations, such as the “incumbent rule,” buttress the conclusion that Kerry should have won.

The exit polls gave Kerry a lead in the popular vote well beyond the statistical margin of error, and diverged substantially from the official results in many states, generally overstating Kerry’s vote total. (This claim is largely true, although not everything TIA says about it is.)

Fraud is the only good explanation of the exit poll discrepancies. In particular, there is no good reason to believe that Kerry voters participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. Since Kerry did better than Bush among people who did not vote in 2000, Bush would have had to do much better among Gore 2000 voters than Kerry did among Bush 2000 voters — and that can’t have happened.

It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven’t looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA’s arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it’s worth, I will explain at some length why I don’t agree with TIA’s views.

Please note that this is not a one-size-fits-all election integrity FAQ.

Do you think that electronic voting machines are almost ridiculously insecure and unreliable?

ML
I do, although I certainly don’t agree with every word of every critic. Do you think that John Kerry won or should have won Ohio? You may be right. I don’t know. I doubt it, but I haven’t set out to knock down each and every argument about fraud or vote suppression in the 2004 election — in fact, I agree with several of them. But the arguments (by TIA and others) that Kerry won the popular vote are not at all likely to be true, in my opinion.I have rarely quoted TIA at length because (1) the FAQ is already very long and (2) TIA’s writing is often hard to read. But if you think I have mischaracterized one of his arguments, or if you have other questions or comments about the FAQ, please feel free to contact me at [my last name]@bard.edu.

TIA
These are just a few well-known researchers whose analyses confirm mine: Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., Mark C. Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Michael Keefer, John Conyers, Richard Hayes Phillips, Paul Lehto, etc. At least four have advanced degrees in applied mathematics or systems analysis. I have three degrees in applied mathematics.

It would be useful if Mark would mention the names of the political scientists or statisticians who disagree with my analysis and believe that Bush won the election fairly in 2004. How do they account for his 3 million “mandate”? How do they explain where Bush found 16 million new voters net of voter mortality and turnout? What are their confirming demographics? Do any of the analysts you refer to have degrees in mathematics or statistics? Did their 2004 projections match the exit polls? Or did they match the vote miscount? Have any of them ever written about or considered election fraud in their analysis? Have they analyzed the impact of uncounted votes on election results? What is their track record? Were their projections based on economic or political factors or did they use state and national polling? What was the time period between their final projections and Election Day?

FAQ Summary and Response

1. The Pre-Election Polls

1.1. What did the national pre-election polls indicate?

ML
According to most observers, most pre-election polls put George W. Bush slightly ahead of John Kerry.

TIA
That is simply not the case. Kerry led the pre-election polls from July to Election Day except for a few weeks in September. Real Clear Politics is often cited as the data source but it only listed final Likely Voter (LV polls) – but not one Registered Voter (RV) poll. The final five pre-election polls from CBS, FOX, Gallup, ABC, and Pew had the race essentially tied. Kerry led the five-poll RV average 47.2-46.0; Bush led the LV average 48.8-48.0. Gallup’s RV sample had Kerry leading 48-46; the LV subset had Bush leading 49-47. Gallup allocated 90% of the undecided vote (UVA) to the challenger, so their final prediction was 49-49. Kerry led in the final battleground state polls.

The final five LV samples predicted an average 82.8% voter turnout, but according to post-election Census data, turnout was 88.5%. A regression analysis indicated that Kerry had 48.9% given the 82.8% prediction or 49.3% assuming he had 75% of undecided voters (UVA). But he had 51.3% given the 88.5% turnout and 52.6% with a 75% UVA. Kerry’s pre-election RV polls were 2-3% better than the LV subset since a solid majority of newly registered voters were Democrats.

2008 Update: The Pre-election RV polls had Obama leading by 52-39%. He led the LV subsets (the only ones listed at RCP) by 50-43%. Neither average includes an allocation of undecided voters.

1.2. How does TIA come up with those 99+% probabilities of a Kerry victory?

ML
Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how “undecided” voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error.

TIA
The 2004 Election Model assumed a final 75% undecided voter allocation (UVA) percentage; but provided scenarios ranging from 60-87%. The 5000 trial Monte Carlo EV simulation gave Kerry a 98.0% win probability assuming 60% UVA (99.8% for the base case 75% UVA).

The base case assumption was that Kerry would win 75% of the undecided vote. But the sensitivity analysis showed that he won with 50%. Historically challengers have won the undecided vote over 80% of the time. Gallup assigned 90% of undecided voters to Kerry. There were approximately 22 million new voters; Kerry won this group by 3-2. There were 3 million defecting third-party (Nader) voters; Kerry won this group by nearly 5-1 over Bush.

2008: The Final 2008 Election Model forecast (EM) exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was just 0.2% higher than his recorded 52.9% vote share. His True EV and popular vote were both higher than reported since the final projection was based on Likely Voter polls which understated Obama’s share. He led by 52-39% in the final RV polls- before undecided voters (7%) were allocated. After allocation, he led by 57-41%.

Obama’s expected EV was calculated as the cumulative sum that state win probability multiplied by its electoral vote. The 5000 election trial simulation produced a mean 365.8 EV. Convergence to the theoretical expected 365.3 EV illustrates the Law of Large Numbers.

1.3. Doesn’t the high turnout in the election mean that the registered-voter poll results are probably more accurate than the likely-voter results?

ML
No, high turnout is not a reason to dismiss the likely-voter results. Most pollsters already expected high turnout.

TIA
In 2004, average projected turnout based on the final five LV polls was 82.8%; the Census turnout estimate was 88.5%. A regression analysis of turnout vs. vote share indicated a 82.8% turnout and Kerry had 49% share. But with 88.5% turnout, he had 52.6%. The full RV sample was more accurate then the LV subset since it included many newly registered voters that LV polls filtered out. Because of the extremely high turnout (22 million new voters) many new (i.e. Democratic) voters were missed by the LV polls which understated Kerry’s projected share. Kerry won new voters by 57-62%, based on the National Exit Poll time line. But the Final NEP (13,660 respondents) was forced to match the recorded vote. The exit pollsters 1) reduced Kerry’s new voter share to 54% and 2) adjusted the returning Bush/Gore voter mix from an implausible 41/39% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43/37%.

The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents shows Kerry winning by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents).

2008: With 75% of undecided voters allocated to Obama, final RV polls nearly matched his 58% True Vote share. The True Vote Model is based on a feasible returning voter mix, unlike the impossible 2008 National Exit Poll Bush/Kerry mix (46/37%). The NEP Vote shares were not changed. The 2008 True Vote Model confirms that the 2004 and 2006 NEP adjustments to the returning voter percentages were mathematically impossible in 2004 and implausible in 2006. They were necessary in order to match the poll to the fraudulent recorded vote.

1.4. How about the state polls?

ML
There TIA’s data hold up somewhat better, although his probabilities don’t. While the national polls (prior to TIA’s massaging) fit the official results rather closely, the state polls do not fit as well.

TIA
Professional pollsters must be “massagers” as well since they also allocate undecided voters. Kerry led by 48-47% in the final pre-election RV polls before undecided voters were allocated and by 51-48% after allocation. The pre-election RV polls confirmed the unadjusted state aggregate exit polls which he won by 51.0-47.5%.

According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry easily won the majority of more than 22 million new voters. He led new voters by 62-37% at 8349 respondents (4pm), 59-39% at 11027 (9pm), 57-41% at 13047 (12:22am). His new voter share was sharply reduced to 54-44% at 13660 (1:00am) in the final adjusted poll that was forced to match the recorded vote.

2008: Obama had 57% in the RV polls and 53% in the LV polls after allocating undecided votes.

ML
TIA and others have argued that the pre-election polls were biased against Kerry because they do not cover people who only use cell phones — and these were disproportionately young voters who favored Kerry.

TIA
True. Young people are heavily Democratic cell phone users.
2008: There were more cell-phone users than in 2004. It is one reason why Obama did better in the RV polls.

The “Rules”: Did They Favor Kerry?

2.1. Don’t undecided voters break sharply for the challenger?

ML
Undecided voters probably sometimes break sharply for the challenger. But I can find no evidence that this rule is useful in “allocating” reported undecided voters in presidential elections.

TIA
Undecided voters virtually always break for the challenger. If the undecideds approved of the incumbent they would not be undecided. Mark claims there is no evidence that allocation is “useful”. What is the basis of that statement? Professional pollsters find allocating undecided voters quite useful. Gallup allocated 90% to Kerry. Zogby and Harris: 75-80%.

2008: Six pollsters who allocated an average 67% of the undecided vote to Obama.

2.2. What about the rule that incumbents don’t do better than their predicted shares in the final polls?

ML
On average, it is true that incumbents don’t do better — or, rather, much better — than their predicted shares in the final polls.

TIA
That is a contradiction. Mark agrees that incumbents do no better than their final predicted shares, then he must also agree that undecided voters break for the challenger. If undecideds broke for the incumbent, he would have a higher vote share than his final poll. Therefore how could Bush have won if he did not do better than the final polls indicated – unless he won undecided voters? But the evidence shows that he did NOT win undecideds. That is a contradiction. Bush led the final LV polls by 47-46 before undecided voters were allocated. Kerry led the final RV polls by 48-47. Undecided voters broke 3-1 for Kerry. His adjusted 51-48 projection was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (51.0-47.5) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47.0).

2008: Obama was the de facto challenger since McCain represented a continuation of Bush policies.

2.3. What about the rule that incumbents don’t win when their final approval rating is below 50%?

ML
TIA has stated that Bush’s approval rating on November 1 was 48.5% based on the “average of 11 polls.”

TIA
That is true. You can look up his monthly approval ratings in the 2004 Election Model. In every election since 1972, the incumbent won re-election if his approval rating exceeded 50%. From 1968-2008, the average incumbent final 46.5% approval rating exactly matched the average True vote!

Bush was the ONLY incumbent with approval below 50% to win re-election! There was a strong 0.87 correlation between Bush’s monthly pre-election approval ratings and the national polls. The Bush state approval ratings were highly correlated to his state vote and exit poll shares.

2008: On Election Day, the Bush 22% approval rating indicated that a major Obama landslide was in the making.

Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies

3.1. How do the exit polls work?

ML
Let me say first of all that the main point of the exit polls is not to project who will win the election — although the exit poll interviews are combined with vote count data in order to make projections.

TIA
Unadjusted exit polls work just fine – until the category weights and/or vote shares are forced to match the recorded vote. That makes no sense at all. For one thing, this standard practice assumes that the election is fraud-free. In order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the NEP required an impossible return voter mix and/or implausible vote shares. Most people know that the 2004 election was not fraud-free but are unaware that fraud was just as massive in the 2006 midterms and 2008. The landslides were denied.

2008: The Final 2008 NEP contains impossible returning voter weights. The unadjusted aggregate of the state exit polls (82,000 respondents) showed Obama won by 58-40.5%. The unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) indicated he won by 61-37%.

The published NEP returning voter mix was impossible. It implied that there were 5 million returning third-party voters, but there were only 1.2 million third-party recorded votes in 2004. It also implied that there were 60 million returning Bush voters. Bush had 62 million recorded votes. Approximately 3 million Bush 2004 voters died prior to 2008. Even assuming the fraudulent recorded 62 million, then at most 59 million returned to vote in 2008. Of course that assumes 100% living Bush 2004 voter turnout – not possible.

3.2. How accurate are exit polls?
ML
It depends, of course. Most attempts to argue that exit polls are highly accurate strangely steer around U.S. national exit polls.

TIA
Unadjusted exit polls are quite accurate. Respondents report who they just voted for; there are no undecided voters. On the other hand, the Final National Exit Poll is grossly inaccurate, since it is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it is fraudulent.

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He had 51% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (76,000 respondents). The exit pollsters ignored their state and national polls and just flipped the numbers. The published National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) gave Bush 51%. The National Exit Poll is a subset of the State exit polls.

2008: The unadjusted national exit poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama led by 61-37% – a 30 million margin. He led the weighted, unadjusted state exit polls of 81,388 respondents by 58-40.5%, exactly matching the True Vote Model. Obama did 5.1% better than the recorded vote. The discrepancies are far beyond the 1.0% margin of error.

3.3. Couldn’t spoiled ballots and/or fraud account for these past discrepancies?
ML
Probably not, although they certainly may contribute. Greg Palast offers an estimate of 3.6 million uncounted ballots in 2004 alone.

TIA:
May contribute? They sure do contribute. The best evidence indicates that 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. In 2004, the Census reported 3.4 million uncounted votes. This was confirmed by government statistics (see Greg Palast). If all votes cast had been counted, Bush’s margin would have been reduced from 3.0 to 1.3 million.

But in 2004, uncounted votes were only a fraction of the total fraud. Vote miscounts (switched, stuffed ballots) accounted for most of the discrepancies. In 2000, uncounted votes were a major factor. The Census Bureau reported 5.4 million net uncounted votes, reducing Gore’s margin from approximately 3.0 million to 540,000.

In every election there are millions of net uncounted votes (uncounted less stuffed ballots).

In order to match the recorded vote in 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, the National Exit Polls required that returning living Nixon and Bush voter turnout had to exceed 100%. In other words, there were millions of phantom Bush voters.

The Democratic 1988-2008 unadjusted exit poll margin was 52-42%. The average recorded vote margin was just 48-46%. That’s an 8% margin discrepancy, much higher than we had been led to believe prior to the Roper listing.

3.4. What about exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s reputation for accuracy?
ML
Here is how Mitofsky International’s website puts it: “[Mitofsky’s] record for accuracy is well known”.

TIA
The Final National Exit poll is always “perfect” because it is always forced to match the recorded vote. But the NEP needed an impossible returning voter mix to match the 2004 recorded vote – because the recorded vote was fraudulent. The unadjusted state aggregate exit poll had Kerry winning by 52-47% and closely matched the UVA-adjusted pre-election polls. Either way, the exit polls were quite accurate – even though they were polar opposites.

2008: The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 46% Bush -37% Kerry returning voter mix (12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters).

3.5. Didn’t the exit polls indicate that Kerry won by more than the polls’ margin of error?
ML
It depends on what one means by “the exit polls” and “won.”

TIA
Hmm… the question should be asked: In how many states did the unadjusted exit poll discrepancy exceed the margin of error? The MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in Bush’s favor. The probability is ZERO. Among the 29 were Ohio, Florida, NM, Iowa and Colorado. All flipped from Kerry to Bush.

The question should be: how come not ONE solid Bush state exceeded the margin of error? Because they were already in the bag. Except for Texas, they are small population states and therefore not viable candidates for vote padding.

3.6. Why are the pollsters’ estimates of uncertainty larger than the ones calculated by TruthIsAll and others?

ML
TruthIsAll sometimes has argued that the exit polls should be treated as simple random samples (like drawing marbles from a hat). In this instance, the margin of error for Ohio, with a reported sample size of 2040, would be about 4.5 points on the margin using the 95% standard.

TIA
The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.2%. Notes to the National Exit Poll (13047 respondents) indicate that MoE was 1.0% and that voters were randomly selected as they exited the voting booth. See exitpolls_us_110204.gif

2008: The Final 2008 NEP had 17,836 respondents; the MoE was less than 1.0%

3.7. Doesn’t E/M’s own table show that the margin of error is plus-or-minus 1% for 8000 respondents or more?

ML
That table (on page 2 of the national methods statement) applies to percentages in the tabulations, not to the vote projections.

TIA:
The 1.0% MoE applies to the projected vote share for any given category cross tab in which at least 8000 have been sampled. There were 13,047 respondents at 12:22am and the MoE was 0.86%. It was 1.12% after including a 30% “cluster effect”. In the “Voted in 2000” category, there were approximately 3200 respondents (2.2% MoE, including the cluster effect). The MoE declines as vote shares diverge from a 50/50% split. For the 60/40% new voter split, the MoE was 1.7%. The MoE was just 1.0% for returning Bush and Kerry voters(a 90/10% vote split).

3.8. Doesn’t everyone agree that the exit poll results were outside the margin of error?

ML
Yes: overall, and in many states, the exit poll results differed from the official results by beyond the margin of error, overstating Kerry’s performance.

TIA:
It is more accurate to say that the official vote understated Kerry’s True Vote. The Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System reported than the MoE was exceeded in 29 states – all in favor of Bush. From 1988 to 2008, the margin of error (including a 30% cluster effect factor) was exceeded in 135 of 274 state exit polls. The probability of that is zero. All but 4 red-shifted to the Republicans. The probability of that is zero.

2008: The unadjusted state aggregate (58% Obama)  exactly matched the True Vote Model and the National Exit Poll (61%). They indicated that Obama won by 22-23 million votes.

3.9. Aren’t survey results far outside the margin of error prima facie evidence of fraud?

ML
Margins of “error” refer to random sampling error. Most survey researchers would say that results outside the calculated margin of error most likely evince non-sampling error in the survey, such as non-response bias, sampling bias, or measurement error.

TIA
They evince non-sampling error? What about a vote counts? Do they evince fraud? Or is that inconceivable?

3.10. Which states had the largest exit poll discrepancies? Wasn’t it the battleground states?

ML
No, the largest exit poll discrepancies were generally not in battleground states.

TIA
Yes, they were. The overall WPE was higher in the battleground states; the lowest WPEs were in strong Bush states with low electoral votes. Not surprising, since there was noneedto steal votes in bed-rock GOP states. The largest exit poll discrepancies by vote count were in Democratic strongholds: New York and California. The NY exit poll discrepancy accounted for 750,000 of Bush’s total 3.0 million vote margin. Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 62-36%; the margin was reduced from 26% to 18% in the recorded vote (58.5-40%).

Are we to believe that Bush gained vote share from 2000 to 2004 in Democratic urban locations while his share of the vote in rural areas declined? The strong 0.61 correlation between county size and percentage increase in the recorded Bush vote in New York State is one example of the implausible Bush Urban Legend. His recorded urban vote share increased as a result of election fraud.

Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies

4.1. How did the exit pollsters explain the discrepancies in 2004?
ML
In the Edison-Mitofsky Evaluation of the 2004 Election System, they stated Within Precinct Error was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”.

TIA
What data did they base that hypothesis on? It’s a myth that was quickly promoted in the corporate media (the exit pollster’s benefactors). The pollsters own data shows the opposite. Response rates were higher in Bush (rural) strongholds than in Kerry (urban) strongholds. Could the 6.5% average WPE have simply been due to the fact that there were more Kerry voters than Bush voters? How does E-M explain the mathematically impossible 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix in the Final National Exit Poll? They can’t have it both ways. The Final NEP was forced to match the miscounted recorded vote. US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

2008: New election, same anomaly. This time it’s 46/37%.

4.2. What is the “reluctant Bush responder” (rBr) hypothesis?
ML
What the pollsters concluded in the evaluation report was simply that Kerry voters apparently participated at a higher rate.

TIA
That was a trial balloon immediately floated by the exit pollsters to explain the discrepancies but they had no data to back it up. In fact, the report suggested otherwise; there was a slight Bush bias in the exit polls. But no one in the media has called them on it. The rBr canard was contradicted by the Final National Exit Poll. A mathematically impossible Bush/Gore 43/37 returning voter mix was required to match the vote count. Unfortunately few read the report.

US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

The Final National Exit Poll indicated that returning Bush voters comprised 43% of the electorate; just 37% were Gore voters. Bush needed 55% of non-responders to match his recorded vote since he had 47% of responders. Exit Poll response was higher in strong Bush states than in Kerry states.

2008: Expect the same tired canard: Democratic voters were more anxious to speak to the exit pollsters, blah, blah, blah…

4.3. Does the participation bias explanation assume that fraud is unthinkable?
ML
I will present several lines of argument that participation bias accounts for much of the exit poll discrepancy, and that fraud does not.

TIA
Do the “lines of argument” include data from the E-M report that indicates Bush voters participated at a higher rate? The change in the Bush recorded vote share from 2000 to 2004 is an incorrect measure of Swing. It should be based on total votes cast (i.e. the True Vote). The correlation between TRUE vote swing as measured by the 2000 and 2004 unadjusted exit polls and recorded Red-shift was a strong 0.44.

Kathy Dopp of U.S. Count Votes proved that it is not NECESSARY that there be a CORRELATION for fraud to occur; the assertion was logically false.

2008: Expect the “swing vs. red-shift: canard to be used again. But as in 2004, “swing” in 2008 will assume a fraud-free 2004. In any case, the premise has been proven logically false, since it is easy to display scenarios that disprove it.

4.4. Don’t the high completion rates in “Bush strongholds” disprove the rBr or bias hypothesis?

ML
No, and I’m amazed how much mental effort has gone into elaborating this very weak argument.

TIA
Amazed that a regression analysis shows completion rates declined from Bush to Kerry states? The analysis is a “strong” argument. The Kerry vote share vs. Exit Poll completion graph clearly shows the pattern.

2008: The E-M report has not yet been released. Why? It will surely show the same regression trend.

4.5. How can you explain the impossible changes in the national exit poll results after midnight?

ML
As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections — and, therefore, in line with the official returns.

TIA
But what if the tabulations were corrupted by official vote miscounts? Given the overt 2000 election theft, matching to the recorded vote count in 2004 requires a major leap of faith: to assume that Bush had neither motive, means or opportunity to steal the election.

4.6. Why were the tabulations forced to match the official returns?
ML
If the official returns are more accurate than the exit polls — and bear in mind that exit polls have been (presumably) wrong in the past — then weighting to the official returns should, generally, provide more accurate tabulations.

TIA
The polls were “presumably” wrong?. I suppose it was “presumably” coincidental that in the last 6 elections, the margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls – and 131 red-shifted to the Republican. Here is simple proof that the vote count was wrong: a significant part of the exit poll discrepancies in every election since 1968 can be explained by millions of uncounted votes.

2008: The Final NEP once again assumed an impossible mix of returning Bush/Kerry/Other voters (46/37/4%). The Bush 46% (60.2m) share is impossible; there were at most 57 million returning Bush voters – if you assume that his 62 million recorded votes in 2004 were legitimate. The 4% returning third-party (5.2m) share is impossible or the 2004 third-party vote was significantly higher than the official reported 1.2 million.

4.7. Wasn’t there an effort to cover up the exit poll discrepancies?
ML
Not that I can see.

TIA
That’s because you are not looking for them. You don’t see them either a) because you refuse to consider the preponderance of the evidence or b) you are not looking hard enough. The National Exit Pool has not provided raw, unadjusted precinct data for peer review. When pressured to provide unadjusted Ohio exit poll data, they “blurred” the data by not divulging the precincts. Of course, the MSM has never discussed this. But that is no longer even necessary. We have the unadjusted state and national exit polls and the incontrovertible red-shifts and the impossible forced matching of the exit polls to the recorded votes. We don’t need anything else. The data that has been released proves systemic Election Fraud far beyond any doubt.

2008: There is obviously an ongoing, recurring effort to cover up the fraud. Just look at the NEP. No one is questioning the 8% discrepancy between the Obama’s unadjusted NEP (61%) and his recorded share (53%).

4.8. Is there any specific reason to think that the exit poll discrepancies don’t point to fraud?

ML
One of my favorites is based on TruthIsAll’s observation: “Based on the pre-election polls: 41 out of 51 states (incl DC) deviated to Bush. Based on the exit polls: 43 out of 51 deviated to Bush.”

TIA
How can the margin of error be exceeded in 29 states, all in favor of Bush, and not be an indicator of massive fraud? How can forcing the Final NEP to match the vote count (using impossible weights and implausible vote shares) not be an indicator of fraud? How can the state and national polls not indicate fraud? When input to the Interactive Election Simulation model, the 51-48% Kerry victory was confirmed by the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (52-47%) and the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7-47%) After allocating undecided voters, pre-election state and national polls matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls.

2008: The unadjusted exit polls show an even larger red-shift than 2004.

4.9. Is there any specific reason to believe that participation bias does explain the discrepancies?

ML
Yes, beyond the facts that participation bias is common, that past exit polls have overstated Democratic performance, and that the exit poll discrepancies don’t correlate with pre-election poll discrepancies, “swing” from 2000, or electronic voting machine use, there is also some evidence indicating participation bias in 2004.

TIA
But we KNOW that a major cause of the discrepancies was sue to uncounted votes. And we have evidence that the votes have been miscounted as well? True, the Democrats always do better in exit polls than the recorded vote because 70-80% of uncounted votes are Democratic. The premise of the “swing vs. red-shift” argument (that the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes are appropriate to measure swing) is invalid. At least 5.4 million (net of stuffed) ballots were never counted in 2000 and 3.4 million were uncounted in 2004. The false premise kills the argument that near-zero correlation between vote swing and red shift “kills the fraud argument”. The “swing vs. red-shift” canard is pure double-talk designed to confuse. It was debunked in general by Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes in a mathematical proof. And using votes cast and the True Vote as the baseline shows that in fact, the correlation has been a strong one in the elections where a Bush was the incumbent.

2008: The media is sure to use the same, pathetic bias argument that Democratic voters were more likely to be exit-polled – among other things.

4.10. Aren’t you offering a lot of unproven speculation?
ML
You could call it that, or you could call it scientific reasoning on the basis of incomplete evidence.

TIA
On the contrary, you are forsaking the scientific method by your refusal to consider the best evidence (the data) and an unbiased analysis. Instead you resort to faith-based and disproven arguments. The True Vote Model has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls. The evidence is overwhelming. You have seen more than enough evidence but refuse to accept any of it.

2008: Even with more evidence of fraud in the impossible 2008 Final NEP, Mark still invokes rBr and “false recall”.

4.11. Are you saying that the exit polls disprove fraud?
ML
No. As noted earlier, many forms of fraud may be compatible with the exit poll results. However, it seems hard to reconcile massive, widespread fraud – on the order of many millions of miscounted votes — with the exit poll results unless one begins by discounting the details of the exit poll results.

TIA
A “massive” 5% vote switch is very possible with unverifiable touch screens and invisible central tabulators. Uncounted votes accounted for over half of Bush’s 3 million “mandate”. There were 125.7 million votes cast in 2004. In 2000, 110.8 million votes were cast. Approximately 5.5 million died. Of the 105 million still living, approximately 102 million voted in 2004. Therefore there were 23 million new voters and 3 million returning Nader voters. How did they vote? For Kerry. He had approximately 15.5 million (60%) – a 5 million margin. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. So how did Bush turn a 5.5 million deficit into a 3 million surplus? That’s an 8.5 million net vote switch. Are we to believe that 8.5 million more Gore voters defected to Bush than Bush voters defected to Kerry? That is beyond implausible.

2008: And now we are expected to believe that were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters.

4.12. Are you saying that you are sure Bush didn’t steal the election?
ML
No, depending on what one means by “steal.” In particular, I think it is at least possible that some combination of vote suppression (purges, long lines, intimidation, etc.) and uncounted votes cost John Kerry a victory in Ohio, and therefore in the election. (Obviously “uncounted votes” can be regarded as a form of vote suppression.) I doubt it, but I am not arguing against it here.

TIA
There you go, refusing once again to even consider the probability that votes were miscounted electronically. Why not? You agree that vote suppression is “possible” when it is proven by the facts. After all the anecdotal evidence of vote miscounts, you still only go as far as to suggest “vote suppression” and uncounted votes as “possibilities”, but do not consider the very real probability that votes were miscounted at the touch screens and central tabulators.

Why would election officials employ visible vote suppression in the light of day but not resort to invisible, unverifiable electronic vote switching and other surreptitious methods?You cannot logically refute that.

2008: A new election and still the same unverifiable voting machines. It’s a repeat of the 2006 Democratic Tsunami. Landslide denied.

Comparing 2004 to 2000

5.1. Why has TruthIsAll called the “2000 presidential vote” question the clincher?

ML
TIA emphasizes two aspects of this table. First, he notes, it is impossible that 43% of the 2004 electorate voted for Bush in 2000. That would be over 52 million Bush voters, whereas Bush only got about 50.5 million votes in 2000. (Some of those voters must have died, or not voted for other reasons.)

TIA

Unadjusted exit poll update: Well, now that the actual National and state exit poll numbers have been released and show that Kerry had 51.7% in the former and 51.0% in the latter, thus confirming the mortality and turnout analysis in the True Vote Model, it’s just a moot point now, is it not? It’s a moot point now that we have proof that the 13,660 actual responses were adjusted in the Final National Exit Poll to force a match to the recorded vote.

But here is my original response to this anyway. It’s still valid because it is irrefutable logic that has been confirmed by the unadjusted exit polls – even though it stands by itself.

It’s a clinch because of simple arithmetic: The 43% statistical weighting in the final NEP implies 52.6 million returning Bush voters – 2.1 million more than his recorded 50.46 million in 2000. But let’s not stop there. Approximately 2.5 million died, therefore at most 48 million could have voted in 2004. If 46 of 48 million returned to vote in 2004, then the Final NEP overstated the number of Bush voters by 6.6 million. This is not rocket science or brain surgery.

2008:
Unadjusted exit poll update: The unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) shows that Obama had 61%. And the unadjusted state exit polls (82,000 respondents) show he had 58.0%. Once again, the exit pollsters and their benefactors in the mainstream media are hoisted on their own petard.

It’s even worse this time around. The returning Bush/Kerry voter mix was 46/37%. Even if Bush won by the recorded 3 million votes and there was zero fraud in 2004, the mix implies that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But if Kerry won by the unadjusted exit poll 52-47% (6 million votes) then there was an 18 million switch!

5.2. What is wrong with the “impossible 43%” argument?
ML
It assumes that exit poll respondents accurately report whom they voted for in the previous election. In reality, exit poll respondents seem to have overstated their support for the previous winner in every exit poll for which I could obtain data, ten in all, going back to 1976. Lots of other evidence indicates that people often report having voted for the previous winner although they didn’t. Perhaps most telling is an (American) National Election Study (NES) “panel” in which people were interviewed soon after the 2000 election, and then re-interviewed in 2004.

TIA
This will put the 43/37 argument to eternal rest and close the book on False Recall. In the unadjusted 2004 NEP (13,660 respondents) Kerry had 7,074 (51.71%) and Bush 6,414 (46.95%). Of the 13,660 respondents, 3,182 were asked who they voted for in 2000: 1,257 (39.50%) said Bush and 1,221 (38.37%) said Gore. When the 39.5/38.37 mix is applied to the 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry has 51.74%, exactly matching the unadjusted NEP.

This puts the lie to the published Final NEP (Bush 50.7-48.3%) and the 43/37% returning Bush/Gore mix. We have just proved that the Final NEP 43/37 mix is a forced result – not an actual sample.

Gore had 540,000 more official votes than Bush (3 million if the True Vote 5.4m uncounted votes are included). Why would returning Gore voters, but not returning Bush voters, misstate their past vote? It makes no sense. The past vote question was posed to 3,182 of 13,660 exit poll respondents. Yet the responses to past vote question confirmed the 2004 unadjusted National Exit poll (13,660 respondents).

The past vote question was not a factor in the other category crosstabs: sex, race, income, party-id, location, when decided, military background, etc). The respondents were only asked who they voted for. And 51% said Kerry. No fog, no forgetting.

False Recall assumes the recorded vote as a baseline, not the True Vote. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000. But he won the unadjusted state exit polls by 6 million (50.8-44.5%).  False recall and swing vs. red-shift assumed that the 2000 election was fair. That is a FALSE PREMISE.

There is no evidence to suggest Gore voters forgot or were motivated to lie. Retrospective surveys matched the True Vote when TOTAL VOTES CAST was used as a baseline. The NES respondents told the truth about their past vote: In 1968-2008, the average NES winning margin was 11.4%.

The average True Vote winning margin was 10.6%. The average True Vote winning share deviated by 0.4% from NES. The average Democratic True winning share deviated by 0.7%. The average Republican True winning share deviated by 0.46%.

2008: It’s hard to believe that the “false recall” canard is still being used, especially since Bush’s 48% approval rating in 2004 declined to 30% in 2006 and 22% in 2008. Are we expected to believe that the 2008 Final NEP 46/37% returning voter mix was due to Kerry voters misstating their past vote and returning Bush voters were reluctant to be interviewed? It’s a true Hobson’s choice dilemma.

5.3. What is wrong with the second argument, where new (and Nader) voters break the stalemate in favor of Kerry?

ML
The second argument assumes that Kerry did about as well among Bush 2000 voters as Bush did among Gore 2000 voters. Superficially, the exit poll table supports this assumption.

TIA
The 12:22am National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry had 10% of returning Bush voters and Bush just 8% of returning Gore voters. But in order to force the Final NEP to match the recorded vote, the shares had to be changed to 9% and 10%. Changing the Bush/Gore returning voter mix to 43/37 was not sufficient to match the recorded vote.

In the Democratic Underground “Game” thread, participants agreed to the stipulation that there could not have been more returning Bush voters than were still living. In order to match the recorded vote, Mark had to increase Bush’s share of returning Gore voters to an implausible 14.6%. And he had to reduce Kerry’s share of new voters to 52.9%. The new voter share had already been reduced from 62% at 4pm to 59% at 7:30pm to 57% at 12:22am to 54% in the Final. In effect, Mark abandoned the “false recall” argument. But he reverted back to it when he saw that his fudged vote shares were not taken seriously.

2008: We thought “false recall” was laid to rest in 2006, but Mark still uses it – even as he concedes that Final National Exit Poll weights/shares are always adjusted to force a match to the “official” count. Contradictions abound. Mark wants to have it both ways (rBr and “false recall”). But it’s a Hobson’s Choice. One argument refutes the other. He is spinning like a top.

5.4. But… but… why would 14% of Gore voters vote for Bush??
ML
If one thinks of “Gore voters” as people who strongly supported Gore and resented the Supreme Court ruling that halted the Florida recount, then the result makes no sense. For that matter, if one thinks of “Gore voters” in that way, it makes no sense that they would forget (or at any rate not report) having voted for Gore. Nevertheless, the NES panel evidence indicates that many did. (Of course, the figure may not be as high as 14% — although it could conceivably be even higher).

TIA
Right, it makes no sense. It only makes sense if you consider that the Final NEP was forced to match a corrupt recorded vote by changing the 12:22am return voter mix and the vote shares. But it’s not just that the number of returning Gore defectors makes no sense; the vote share adjustments in the Democratic Underground “Game” were beyond implausible.

The Final was forced to match the recorded vote. The 43/37 returning Bush/Gore voter mix was impossible. The mix required over 6 million phantom Bush voters. The Final had to adjust corresponding Bush vote shares to implausible levels. Kerry won all plausible scenarios in a sensitivity analysis of various vote share assumptions.

2008: To believe that 46% were returning Bush voters, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But even assuming that the official 3 million Bush “mandate” was legitimate, one would only expect an approximate 3 million difference in turnout. Instead we are asked to believe that 4.5 million Kerry voters (7.6% of 59 million) told the exit pollsters they voted for Bush, despite his 22% approval.

TruthIsAll FAQ:
Miscellaneous

M.1. What about the reports of flipped votes on touch screens in 2004?
ML
Many people reported difficulty voting on electronic voting machines (DREs), in particular, that attempts to vote for one candidate initially registered as votes for another. The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), connected to the “OUR-VOTE” telephone hotline, recorded close to 100 such incidents. TruthIsAll has asserted that 86 out of 88 reports of electronic vote-flipping favored Bush. He cites the odds of this imbalance as 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000.

TIA
The probability calculation is correct. The odds that 86 of 88 randomly selected vote switching incidents would be from Kerry to Bush are one in 79 sextillion. The reports came from widely diverse, independent precincts but were just a drop in the bucket. Many voters know of someone whose vote was switched right before their eyes. And yet Mark still does not accept that electronic vote switching was a major cause of the exit poll discrepancies. The votes were not just switched on touch screens. Invisible, unverifiable central tabulators “consolidate” reported precinct votes. But no one could report those vote flips to EIRS.

M.2. Did the 2006 exit polls manifest “red shift” compared with official returns?

ML
Yes. For instance, the initial national House tabulation — posted a bit after 7 PM Eastern time on election night — indicates that Democratic candidates had a net margin of about 11.3 points over Republican candidates. The actual margin was probably about 7 points, depending on how uncontested races are handled.

TIA:
There is no basis for that statement. It’s a “belief” based on a few outlier polls with no allocation of undecided voters. The 120 “generic poll” moving average regression trend line projected that the Democrats would win 56.4% of the vote. The unadjusted aggregate state exit polls produced an identical 56.4% share.

M.3. Do pre-election “generic” House polls in 2006 match the initial exit poll returns?
ML
Not really. A “generic” poll is one that asks respondents whether they would vote for (in Gallup’s words) “the Democratic Party’s candidate or the Republican Party’s candidate,” rather than naming specific candidates.

TIA
So what if the names were not indicated? That is pure nonsense! Yes, they matched all right. The trend-line of 120 pre-election Generic Polls, all won by the Democrats, projected a 56.4% Democratic vote share. Lo and behold, the unadjusted exit poll aggregate was an identical 56.4%!

Yes, it’s true: Generic polls were not a good predictor of the recorded vote. But they did predicted the True Vote! A corrsponding pre-election model quantified the risk that 10-20 House elections would be stolen.

M.4. What about the massive undervotes in Sarasota County, Florida (C.D. 13)?
ML
Without getting into the specifics, the short answer is: I think that if voters had been able to cast their votes as they intended, the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings would have won the House race in Florida’s 13th Congressional District (FL-13) by thousands of votes, instead of losing by under 400. I have seen no evidence that the events in FL-13 shed light on outcomes in any other Congressional race.

TIA
Are we to believe that FL-13 was an isolated case of missing and/or switched votes? And there is no evidence of vote miscounting in the other 434 districts? A number of post-election studies indicate otherwise.

End of FAQ Summary Update
________________________________________________________________________________