RSS

Tag Archives: provisional ballots

Confirmation: Bernie won California by at least 100,000 votes

Richard Charnin
July 10, 2016

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

LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%

According to Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/still-sanders-activists-cling-to-hope-of-flipping-california/  

“They said, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won by 400,000 votes,” Palast said of the media. “Now, I want you to say this number with me: 1,959,900. That’s the number of ballots that were not yet counted. How do you say an election’s over when there are 2 million ballots left to count?”

According to Palast, those ballots had the potential to flip the election. Based on a call to the secretary of state’s office, he estimated that all of the outstanding ballots were from “no party preference” voters; based on a pre-primary poll, he estimated a 40 percentage point margin for Sanders among those ballots.

“Bernie Sanders got at least 1.25 million votes from that pile,” Palast said. “The good news is that Bernie won California. … If you count every ballot, Sanders would win by 100,000.”

J.T. Waldron  writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564

As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.

Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.

In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift:

On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.

By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers.

California primary early vote by mail exit poll

Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis 

When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties,  they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that  the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small  (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Simple California Vote share Model

Assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis- What if Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

Covert Shredding of Provisional Ballots

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

The truck bearing the slogan: Because the Outcome has to be Certain!!!

White-out Erasing of Sanders Ballots

 Election monitors in San Diego   have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials. They  were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official to keep her voice down. The election monitor questions what the officials seen through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview, Charlie Loomis, the IT manager,  confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this; the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how these  provisional ballots must be processed.  Loomis said he has “nothing to do with” those rules. He did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

Date Range Votes HRC Sanders HRC Sanders
Elec Day June 7 early 1,520,626 951,304 557,005 62.56% 36.63%
June 7 late 1,949,824 977,447 945,080 50.73% 48.47%
Elec Day Total 3,470,450 1,928,750 1,502,085 55.58% 43.28%
June 8-23 Vote by Mail 1,313,293 645,090 652,707 49.12% 49.70%
June 7-23 Total 4,783,743 2,573,840 2,154,792 53.80% 45.04%
June 9-23 Provisionl 301,824 120,247 179,163 39.84% 59.36%
Est Provis. 100,000 33,280 66,000 33.28% 66.00%
NPP 995,000 288,550 706,450 29.00% 71.00%
Total 1,396,824 442,077 951,613 31.65% 68.13%
Total 6,180,567 3,015,917 3,106,404 48.80% 50.26%
        90,488   1.46%
Update            
Brakey  Estimated 6,180,567
6/7 EDay Counted 3,470,450
Unctd 2,710,117
7/7 Unctd Counted 2,353,152
Remaining Unctd 356,965
Missing 686,210
7/7 Unctd+ missing 1,043,175
75% Sanders 782,381 Uncounted + missing
25% Clinton 260,794 Uncounted + missing
Sanders gain 521,588
Clinton margin 426,665 on June 7
Sanders margin 94,922 on July 7
Greg Palast Sanders margin 100,000
Advertisements
 
24 Comments

Posted by on July 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2016
Updated: July 4

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

Democratic Primaries spread sheet
TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries
LINKS TO  POSTS

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

In California on Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.

Sanders leads in votes counted since Election Day by 52.3-47.7% . These include mail-ins, crossover ballots, provisional ballots and others. The votes have been individually verified. That is a whopping 17.4% discrepancy in margin from Election Day.

It appears that nearly 15% of Sanders’ votes were flipped to Clinton on maliciously-coded voting machines and central tabulators. View the CA Update spreadsheet.

In addition, thousands of ballots may have been illegally shredded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNsnsWZn0Ws

Poll workers claim that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote using provisional ballots.  There were two reasons for this:

1- Previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls.  

2- Some were marked as vote by mail voters – but they had received no ballot in the mail.  Virtually all who were not  allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.

Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the vote count.  The contrast indicates vote-flipping.  

If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California.  The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.  

EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL – A 23% DISCREPANCY

Election Justice USA is a voter advocacy non-profit organization which demands a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.  It asserts that the Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. In Los Angeles area polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton  lead over Bernie Sanders was less than 10 percent. 

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

 

Provisional Ballots

Acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast exposed the fraud in Florida in 2000. In How California is being stolen from Sanders right now he wrote“As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”

Simple California Vote Share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

Sanders’ Vote share change from Election Day

CALIFORNIA Election Day Current Difference
 TOTAL  43.63% 46.56%  2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA 40.2% 42.5% 2.3%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT 68.7% 68.7% 0.0%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA 60.2% 61.2% 1.0%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER 42.5% 42.5% 0.0%
PLUMAS 55.0% 55.0% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE 39.4% 42.9% 3.4%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BENARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO 44.5% 48.0% 3.5%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA 49.4% 51.1% 1.7%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ 55.6% 57.7% 2.1%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER 44.4% 46.5% 2.1%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE 40.7% 44.6% 3.8%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
112 Comments

Posted by on June 24, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis