RSS

Tag Archives: politics

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Richard Charnin
Dec. 8, 2016

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

Clinton won Nevada by 27,000 votes (47.9-45.5%).
She led the exit poll by 50.4-43.2% (86,000 votes)
The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won by 19,000 votes (47.2-45.4)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

The unadjusted NV exit poll is implausible based on two factors:
1) The Democratic Party-ID share (36D-28R-36I) is inflated. True Party-ID  is derived from the Gallup voter affiliation survey (40I- 32D- 28R). It is estimated as 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I.
2) Clinton’s  45-43% winning margin  of Independents required to match the “unadjusted” exit poll is implausibly high. Trump won Independents by 50-37% in the NV exit poll (matched to the recorded vote)  and by 48-44% nationally.

Summary Statistics

NV Unadjusted exit poll
Clinton wins: 50.4-43.2% (86,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 45-43%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV Reported Vote (CNN)
Clinton won: 47.9-45.5% (27,000 vote margin)
Trump won Independents: 50-37%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV True Vote Model
Trump wins 47.2-45.4% (19,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 50-36%
Party ID: 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I (derived from Gallup)

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/nevada
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

Nevada          
Unadj Exit Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 45% 43% 6% 6%
Calc 100.0% 50.8% 43.0% 3.1% 3.1%
Unadjusted 100.0% 50.9% 43.2% 3.7% 2.2%
Votes (000) 1,113 567 481 41 24
    Margin -86 -7.7%  
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 37% 50% 7% 6%
Calc 100.0% 48.0% 45.5% 3.4% 3.1%
Reported 100.0% 47.9% 45.5% 3.3% 3.3%
Votes (000) 1,113 538 511 37 27
    Margin -27 -2.4%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 31.3% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 27.5% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 41.2% 36% 50% 7% 7%
Calc 100.0% 45.2% 47.3% 3.7% 3.7%
TVM bef UVA 94.5% 42.7% 44.4% 4.7% 2.7%
True Vote 100.0% 45.4% 47.2% 4.7% 2.7%
Votes (000) 1,113 506 525 53 29
    Margin 19 1.8%  
Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 8, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Oct. 12, 2016: Online debates, focus groups and strange pre-election polls

Richard Charnin
Oct.12, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

Trump led 77-22% in the latest online debate polls of 4 million respondents. He had 59% in the online polls after the first debate. Clinton won the CNN “scientific” poll  of 537 respondents by 57-34%.

But the CNN poll indicated  that Trump did better than expected (Better 63%; Worse 21%; Same 15%). This confirms Trump’s 18% improvement in the online polls from the first debate.

In a CNN focus group, a participant reported: After the debate, they asked all of us in the focus group if we were decided on a candidate. Out of 28 panel members, 5 said they were decided on Clinton, 2 said they were decided on Trump, and 12 said they were going to vote 3rd party. But once they saw the response, they reshot the segment and replaced “3rd party” with “still undecided”.

The Frank Luntz focus group came up with an interesting result to the question:Who are you willing to vote for? Four Clinton voters and five undecideds switched to Trump.

Before the debate Hillary: 8: Trump: 9. After: Hillary: 4; Trump: 18

The latest NBC/WSJ Poll of 447 likely voters shows Clinton surging to an 11 point lead.But just like the other mainstream media pre-election polls, Independent Party ID percentages conflict with the Gallup Party Affiliation Survey.

Is there an NBC pollster Conflict of interest?

NBC Party ID Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 43.0% 94.0% 4.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Rep 36.0% 4.0% 80.0% 1.0% 15.0%
Ind 12.0% 35.0% 37.0% 10.0% 18.0%
Match 91.0% 46.1% 35.0% 2.0% 8.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%

Pre-election polls ask voters whether they lean to the Democrat or the Republican. But Bernie Sanders won the vast majority of Independents who will likely  vote for  Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Estimated True Vote Model

Model Gallup Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 32.0% 80.0% 5.0% 10% 5.0%
Rep 28.0% 5.0% 85.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Ind 40.0% 20.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5.0%
VOTE 100.0% 35.0% 35.4% 24.6% 5.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%
 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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

2014 Election : Why won’t the National Election Pool Release UNADJUSTED exit polls?

Richard Charnin
Nov.8, 2014

2014 Election: Why won’t the National Election Pool Release UNADJUSTED exit polls?

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The analysis of 1988-2014 election anomalies has been proven beyond any doubt that Election Fraud is systemic. If the Democrats or the Republicans were interested in fair elections, election fraud would have been eliminated long ago.  This is apparent based on the historic overview and analysis of election fraud.

In 2012,  the National Election Pool (NEP)  came to realize that unadjusted polls were a clear indicator of fraud  so they just stopped polling in 19 states. And we only have  adjusted state and national exit polls, so that the ability to prove election fraud based on unadjusted exit polls and true vote analysis is reduced.

It’s not just the exit polls that are manipulated. Pre-election Registered Voter (RV) polls are reduced to a Likely Voter (LV) subset, eliminating many new, mostly Democratic voters, as noted by  Jonathan Simon: Vote Counts and Polls: An Insidious Feedback Loop

The pattern is repeated in every election cycle:  a) Registered Voter (RV) pre-election polls  are reduced to a Likely Voter (LV) subset (eliminate many new Democratic voters) and b) unadjusted exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote (4-5% red-shift to GOP).

In 2014, the Republicans won the House recorded vote by 52.3-46.6%. According to the final, adjusted National Exit poll, they won by 51.9-46.1%. The .01% difference in margin was not due to perfect polling of a fraud-free election. It was due to the standard procedure of matching the exit poll to a fraudulent recorded vote.

Final vote shares were calculated for all 2014 National Exit Poll categories. But the actual exit poll responses are adjusted to match the recorded vote. UNADJUSTED STATE AND NATIONAL EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS FORCED TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE. But we never get to see the unadjusted polls until years later, if then.

Therefore, voters must demand to view the unadjusted exit polls (including polled precincts).  To paraphrase Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross: The unadjusted national exit polls are gold, but you don’t get them. They’re for closers (the corporate media).

2014 National House Exit Poll

Gender...Mix...Dem... Rep..Other Margin
Men......49.0% 41.0% 57.0% 2.0% 16.0%
Women....51.0% 51.0% 47.0% 2.0% 4.0%
Total..........46.1% 51.9% 2.0% 5.8%
Recorded.......46.6% 52.3% 1.1% 5.7%
Diff............0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 0.1%


The unadjusted national exit polls and the aggregate of state exit polls (adjusted only for state voting population) have closely matched the True Vote Model in all presidential elections since 1988. The True Vote Model has the Democratic margin at 53-41%; the unadjusted state and national exit polls are identical: 52-42%.

The Democrats won the 1988-2008 recorded vote by just 2% (48-46%). There is a consistent 8% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded vote. But we don’t have the unadjusted 2014 National Exit Poll. Based on 1988-2008 margins, 2014 would be expected to show a 50-48% unadjusted (true) Democratic margin- and eliminate the 4% red shift to the GOP.

 

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

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

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2014 in 2014 Elections, Election Myths

 

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

The Election Fraud Quiz II

The Election Fraud Quiz II

Richard Charnin
Sept. 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Debunking a JFK Mysterious Witness Death Lone Nutter

Debunking a JFK Mysterious Witness Death Lone Nutter

Richard Charnin
Aug. 6, 2013
Updated: March 8, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

This post will debunk the following article on JFK witness deaths: http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_32.html

The author writes:
As something of a footnote, conspiracists have long played up the number of “mysterious deaths” associated with the JFK assassination, though an inspection of the list makes it seem substantially less mysterious. In any case, the bottom line of a half-century’s investigation of the assassination is that we are left with the conclusion that was apparent from the start: JFK was killed by a lone assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald.

One of the most preposterous claims of the conspiracists is that there have been large numbers of “mysterious deaths” of witnesses relevant to the JFK assassination. Jim Marrs, in his 1993 book (sic 1989) CROSSFIRE, cited 103 “mysterious deaths” up to 1984.

Conspiracists assert that odds of such groupings of deaths are so low that it is impossible to believe they couldn’t have been part of a plan, in particular citing a 1967 LONDON SUNDAY TIMES article with an early “mysterious deaths” list accompanied by a claim that an actuary had calculated the odds to be “a hundred thousand trillion to one”.

The HSCA found this citation of odds a little hard to believe. The list of people who could be connected to the JFK assassination was long, easily running to thousands, and the idea that a portion of them might have died over some period of years hardly seemed that improbable. The HSCA contacted the TIMES and got back a sheepish answer. It turned out that the question the paper had asked of an actuary was effectively:

Name 15 specific adults selected at random from the population of the USA. What are the odds that all 15 of these named people will be dead within a few years?

The odds are not at all good. Assume that adults in a population have, on the average, a 1 in 10 probability of dying in some given number of years. If 15 adults are selected at random from that population, the odds of all 15 dying to that time would be 1 in 10^15, a thousand trillion to one.

However, anybody with even a simple understanding of probability would know that was asking the wrong question. The right question was obviously: Given a group of several thousand people, what are the odds that at least 15 unspecified members of that group will be dead in a few years?

The answer was that one could bet on it and easily win. Given 1 in 10 odds of an adult in a population dying in some given number of years, we would expect in that time that, duh, roughly a tenth of the population would be dead. The TIMES apologized to the HSCA for the blunder.

——————————————————

The article is a total fiasco

The Lone Nutter’s ignorance and naivete is confirmed by this utterly false statement: “However, anybody with even a simple understanding of probability would know that was asking the wrong question. The right question was obviously: Given a group of several thousand people, what are the odds that at least 15 unspecified members of that group will be dead in a few years? The answer was that one could bet on it and easily win. Given 1 in 10 odds of an adult in a population dying in some given number of years, we would expect in that time that, duh, roughly a tenth of the population would be dead.”

The author calls legitimate seekers of the truth “conspiracists”. But he does not understand the problem, much less the math. This is the correct definition: Given a group of N people, what is the probability that at least n members of the group will die unnaturally (homicide, accident or suicide) within T years?

He just repeats the usual Warren Commission apologist talking points. The mathematical proof of a conspiracy relegates his screed as pure propaganda. Lone Nutters are shameless and have no regard for the truth.

The author’s lack of specificity is the “tell”. He fails to consider any of the following critical factors: the total number of material witnesses in the group, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, the time interval, unnatural mortality rates. All are necessary input for the probability calculation.

This LN does not even qualify as an amateur. But that’s understandable. After all, he’s a Lone Nutter, who by definition is incapable of rational analysis.

His logical errors and omission of key factors in his “analysis” include:
1) not assuming a specific number of witnesses in the target group,
2) invention of a 1 in 10 probability of dying,
3) not assuming a definitive time period,
4) failure to consider unnatural deaths and related mortality stats,
5) use of a pathetically, unscientific probability calculation,
6) naively states that “roughly a tenth of the population would be dead”.
7) failure to refute the relevance of 100 “convenient” deaths
8) failure to consider the more than 60 deaths of witnesses sought to testify.
9) failure to correctly calculate the expected number of unnatural deaths:
E=N*T*R, where N =total witnesses in the group, T= time period, R= weighted average mortality rate.
10) failure to consider the “paradigm shift”: why the witnesses died is a non-factor. The only relevant factors are how many died unnaturally, the time interval and the universe of material witnesses or the number of witnesses called to testify.

There are 120 dead material witnesses in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database based on a 1400+ total universe. Of the 120, 63 were sought to testify at the Warren Commission, Garrison trial, Church Senate and HSCA.

The author does not consider that the number of UNNATURAL deaths among the 1400+ witnesses is the key factor – not total deaths. There was a STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE 77 OFFICIALLY RULED UNNATURAL DEATHS (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 3 unknown).

In fact, 25 of the 40 accidents and suicides were actually HOMICIDES – based on the STATISTICAL EXPECTATION of 12 accidents and 3 suicides – so we are up to 59 homicides among the 77 unnatural deaths. But by the same reasoning, there was a statistically impossible number of “natural deaths”: HEART ATTACKS and SUDDEN CANCERS. Therefore, the 34 OFFICIAL homicides UNDERSTATES the true number (estimated as 90+) based on STATISTICAL EXPECTATION.

These graphs are mathematical proof of a conspiracy.

The Paradigm Shift
But his most fundamental flaw was focusing on the relevance of individual witnesses in Marrs’ list without considering the paradigm shift: WHY the witnesses died is IRRELEVANT.

The relevant factors are how many witnesses were called to testify, how many died, their cause of death and the time period. In fact, from 1964-78, approximately 1100 witnesses were called to testify in four investigations. At least 63 died (38 unnaturally, including 27 homicides).

The author claims there were thousands of witnesses. In fact, the FBI claimed to have interviewed 25,000 (only about 1400 were material). But let’s assume there were 25,000.

There were at least 25 homicides of material witnesses from 1964-66. The probability of at least 25 homicides among the 25,000 is 1 in 38 BILLION (2.6E-11). The average homicide rate for 1964-66 was 0.000061.

There were at least 83 homicides from 1964-78. The probability of 83 homicides among the 25,000 is 1 in 43 TRILLION (2.32E-14). Only 32 homicides would normally be expected. The average homicide rate for 1964-78 was 0.000084.

The data and probabilities are displayed in JFK Calc: A Spreadsheet/Database of Mysterious Witness Deaths.

Statistically expected number of unnatural deaths
Expected unnatural deaths: E = N*T*R, where
N = 1400 material witnesses
T = 15 years (1964-78)
R = .000818 average unweighted unnatural mortality rate

JFK Material witnesses unnatural mortality
Among 1400 material witnesses from 1964-78, 77 deaths were officially ruled as unnatural – but only 17 were statistically expected: 34 homicides (2 expected); 24 accidents (12 expected); 16 suicides (3 expected) and 3 unknown (0.2 expected). There were 40 deaths officially ruled as accidental or suicide – but only 15 were expected. Therefore it is likely that approximately 25 (40-15) accidents and suicides were actually homicides.

Expected vs. Official Unnatural Death (1964-78)

Cause Expected Official Mortality Rate
homicide 1.76 34 0.000084 44%
suicide. 2.91 16 0.000130 21%
accident 12.47 24 0.000594 31%
unknown. 0.21 3 0.000010 4%
Total 17.35 77 0.000818 100%

Warren Commission
According to the CIA, N= 418 witnesses testified, but the total was 552 including affidavits and depositions.

There were at least n= 18 unnatural deaths over T= 15 years (1964-78). The probability of at least 10 unnatural deaths among the witnesses in 3 years is:
P = 1 – poisson(9, 1.06, true) = 1.81E-07 (1 in 5,509,693)
(based on the 0.000842 national unnatural rate)
P = 1 – poisson(9, 0.31, true) = 1.53E-12 (1 in 652,270,204,558)
(based on the 0.000245 JFK witness-weighted unnatural rate)

The London Sunday Times Actuary
The actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years (13 were unnatural) is matched by assuming 459 witnesses and the 0.000207 weighted unnatural mortality rate. Only one unnatural death would normally be expected among 459 witnesses in the three year period.
The probability is:
P= POISSON (13, 0.29, false) = 9.96E-18 (1 in 100,000 TRILLION)

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

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

 
23 Comments

Posted by on August 6, 2013 in JFK

 

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

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

2012 Election Fraud: A True Vote Model Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
5 Comments

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

 

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

Matrix of Deceit: Election Myths, Logic and Probability of Fraud

Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability

Richard Charnin
Oct. 29, 2012

Everyone thinks about how to go about solve problems. But how can they be sure the methods used to solve them are valid? My new book Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts deals with uncertainty in our election systems. How do we know that the votes are counted as cast? If the information we are given is tainted, how do we know? We must distinguish between intuitive and logical reasoning. Decisions must be made where there are multiple solution methods.

Which make the most sense? Which is the most probable? If you flip a coin and it comes up heads five times in a row, is the next flip more likely to be tails? Is a baseball player with a .300 batting average who has not had a base hit in his last 10 at bats due to get one his next time up? In decision making, we always need to consider probabilities.

In mathematics we need unambiguous definitions and rules. In other words, we need logical thinking. Logic is defined as a systematic study of the conditions and procedures required to make valid inferences.

We start with a statement and infer other statements are valid and justified as a consequence of the initial statement. It is important to note that logical inference does not mean the statement is true, only that it is valid. If the starting statement is true, then a logically derived result must also be true.

For example, it is a statement of fact that Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, so there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. But according to the 2004 National Exit Poll, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is clearly impossible.

Furthermore, since the 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible and adjusted to match the recorded vote, then the recorded vote must also have been impossible. This simple deductive reasoning proves 2004 Election Fraud. But the recorded 2000 vote was also fraudulent – as were all elections before that. None reflected true voter intent. The simple proof: there were 6-10 million uncounted votes in every election prior to 2004. Votes cast exceeded votes recorded by 6-10 million. And 70-80% of the uncounted votes were Democratic.

Each National Exit poll is forced to match the bogus recorded vote based on bogus returning voters from the prior bogus election. It’s a recursive process. The polls assume all elections are fair and accurate. The same returning voter logic applied to the 1988, 1992 and 2008 elections shows that they were also fraudulent; the National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote by indicating there were more returning Bush voters than were alive to vote. The corporate media has never seen fit to explain these recurring impossibilities.

Science is “cumulative”. New developments may refine or extend past knowledge. There is no such thing as a foolproof system. What is needed is a probability-based system for many types of problems. It is the only rational way of thinking.

There is no way to eliminate all risk (error) in a system model (or election poll). The problem is to evaluate risk and measure it based on a probability analysis. Every important problem requires a comparison of the odds. Probability analysis supplements classical logical thinking but does not replace it. In fact, classical logic is required in every step in the development of probability theory.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
Election Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Unadjusted National Exit poll: Kerry 51.7-Bush 47%
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State unadjusted exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: Obama 61.0-McCain 36.2%
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

 
7 Comments

Posted by on October 29, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis