RSS

Tag Archives: richard charnin

Trump Won the True Vote

Richard Charnin
Dec. 5, 2017

Look inside the book: Trump Won the True Vote

Mainstream media pundits claim that Clinton won the primary and presidential election by three million votes. It’s a myth. They fail to consider the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent.

A True Vote Model analysis indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote. The pundits always assume that the recorded vote is accurate but never consider the fraud factor. The historical statistical evidence is conclusive: every election is fraudulent.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 5, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

So I’m a “left-wing Internet crank” who has been “weaponized” for Trump by Roger Stone?

Richard Charnin
Sept. 22, 2017

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

So I’m a “left-wing Internet crank” who has been “weaponized” for Trump by Roger Stone?

On August 3, 2016, Felix Salmon wrote: “Stone and Trump base most of their argument, such that it is, on one man. Stone refers to him as “a mathematician called Richard Charnin.”
http://splinternews.com/how-the-donald-trump-campaign-is-we…

Hey Felix, my political views are irrelevant. But I do have a lifetime membership in the Truth Party. I crunch numbers.

Salmon goes on:
“For years now, Charnin has been best known as the go-to guy for anybody who wants evidence that voter fraud is deciding elections. He’s beloved in the corner of the internet which believes that Hillary Clinton stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, or, for that matter, that George W Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry. When he’s not concentrating on who-killed-JFK conspiracy theories, he can generally be relied upon to say that the more left-wing candidate got more votes than the winner in major elections.

That makes Charnin a very strange bedfellow for the Trump campaign, just in terms of his political leanings. But even stranger is the idea that Trump would want his supporters to pick up Charnin’s voter fraud ball and run it all the way into the zone of democratic illegitimacy”.

I plead guilty as charged. But I am not a conspiracy theorist. I use math analysis based on published facts to prove that…
1) JFK was assassinated in a massive Coup by the Deep State:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Cons…/…/ref=sr_1_1…

2) Hillary stole the 2016 nomination:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/77-billion-to-one-2…/) and

3) Kerry beat Bush easily in 2004:  http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Deceit-Forcing-Pre-Election-Fraudulent/dp/1480077038/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351564528&sr=8-1&keywords=matrix+of+deceit

My next book is on the 2016 election. As usual, expect the mathematical analysis you won’t ever get in the MSM.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 22, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 Election: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Updated Sept. 19, 2017

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

Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.8 million. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote due to election fraud.

There is evidence that millions of illegals probably voted in 2016. View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast, least one million Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via Crosscheckwhich eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls. He claims that 7 million minority voters were disenfranchised.

There is evidence that  George Soros , a Clinton backer,  controls voting machines in 16 states.  Election analyst Bev Harris has posted Fraction Magic , an algorithm used to flip votes on Central tabulators.

Sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of assumptions on the vote count.

Let TV = True Vote; RV = Recorded vote
RV = TV + Fraud

Given the Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6

Election fraud components:
-Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
-Illegal voters (non-citizens)
-Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
Uncounted- 7 million: 85% for Clinton
Vote Flip- 5 million (net): 8% of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Illegals- 2 million: 85% for Clinton
Trump wins by 3.7 million: 68.7-64.9 (48.6-46.0%)

Assume 12 million uncounted: 85% to Clinton 
(2 million illegal, 5 million flip)
Trump still wins: 69.4-69.2 million (47.48-47.32%)

………..Total………Clinton….Trump……Other
Vote…..136.2……..65.7………62.9………7.6
Pct……,,100%..,….48.3%…..46.2%……5.6%

Illegal… 2.0…….  -1.70…..  -0.30…………0 non-citizens
Unctd…..7.0………5.95……..1.05…………0 disenfranchised 
Flip……..5.0…….  -5.0……….5.0………….0 voting machine

Net……141.2……64.9…….68.7………7.6
Adjusted………..46.0%….48.6%……5.4%

Sensitivity Analysis (assume 7 million uncounted, 85% for Clinton)
Worst case (7% flip, 80% of illegals to Clinton):  Trump wins by 2.3 million
Base case: (8%  flip, 85% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 3.7 million
Best case: (9% flip, 90% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 5.2 million

View the spreadsheet:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/millennials-make-up-almost-half-of-latino-eligible-voters-in-2016/ph_election-2016_chap1-chart-08/

Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.2 million 65.7 62.9 7.6
48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal 2.0 -1.7 -0.3 0
Uncounted 7.0 5.95 1.05 0
Vote Flip 5.0 -5.0 5.0 0
Adjusted 141.22 64.9 68.7 7.6
  46.0% 48.6% 5.4%
7.0 million uncounted 85% to Clinton
Illegals to 
Clinton
 
  80% 85% 90%
Flip to Clinton   Trump Vote
9% 69.20 69.30 69.40
8% 68.57 68.67 68.77
7% 67.94 68.04 68.14
Vote Flip   Trump Vote
9% 49.00% 49.07% 49.14%
8% 48.56% 48.63% 48.70%
7% 48.11% 48.18% 48.25%
Vote Flip   Clinton vote
9% 45.61% 45.54% 45.47%
8% 46.06% 45.98% 45.91%
7% 46.50% 46.43% 46.36%
Vote Flip   Trump margin
9% 4.79 4.99 5.19
8% 3.53 3.73 3.93
7% 2.27 2.47 2.67
 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2016 Pre-election Polls in 16 Battleground states were biased for Clinton

Richard Charnin
Sept.15, 2017

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

In 16 battleground states, Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%, a 2.1% margin. Clinton led the pre-election polls by 44.5-44.1%, a 0.4% margin. There was a 2.5% discrepancy between the polls and  corresponding recorded votes.

In 10 final National Polls, Clinton led 46.8-43.6%, a 3.2% margin. She won the National recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%, a 2.1% margin.

The 4.6% difference between the  2.5%  battleground margin discrepancy and the 2.1% national recorded margin is an indicator that the pre-election polls were biased for the Democrats. It is further evidence of election fraud.

When undecided voters are allocated (UVA), Trump leads the 16-poll average by 46.6-45.3%. The Gallup National Voter affiliation survey (40Ind-32Dem-28Rep) was the basis used to derive each state’s Party-ID. Trump leads by 48.9-43.1% with these adjustments.

Clinton won the 16 unadjusted exit polls by 47.4-45.6%, a 1.8% margin.

Summary of 16 Battleground states:
Unweighted averages:
Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%.
Clinton won the pre-election polls by 44.5-44.1%.
Trump won the UVA-adjusted polls by 46.6-45.3%.
Trump won the Gallup Party-ID adjusted polls by 48.9-43.1%.
Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls by 47.4-45.6%

Weighted averages (56.8 million votes):
Trump won the recorded vote by 48.4-46.1%.
Clinton won the pre-election polls by 45.0-44.7%.
Trump won the UVA-adjusted polls by 47.0-45.7%.
Trump won the Gallup Party-ID adjusted polls by 48.5-43.9%.
Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls by 47.5-46.1%

Battleground Exit poll discrepancies:
Recorded vote:3.9%; UVA:3.1%; Pre-election polls:1.4%; Gallup:7.6%
UVA: Undecided Voter Allocation: Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%.

Trump likely won the national vote by 48-44% (5 million votes).

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/2016-true-vote-models-in-confirmation-party-id-and-returning-2012-voters/

Real Clear Politics (RCP)is the data source for the pre-election polls:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/state/

View the data and calculations for the 16 state polls, recorded votes, unadjusted exit polls and undecided voters: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1579502018

 Trump Pre-elect UVA Recorded Exit polls
True Vote
AZ 46.3 48.3 48.1 46.9 50.7
CO 40.4 44.3 43.3 41.5 48.9
FL 46.6 48.1 48.6 46.4 48.0
GA 49.2 50.0 50.5 48.2 52.6
IA 44.3 47.6 51.2 48.0 52.1
ME 39.5 44.5 44.9 40.2 48.6
MI 42.0 45.4 47.3 46.8 47.1
MN 39.0 40.8 44.9 45.8 46.5
MO 50.3 52.0 56.4 51.2 51.4
NV 45.8 47.2 45.5 42.8 47.1
NH 42.7 45.9 46.5 44.2 51.1
NC 46.5 49.2 49.9 46.5 46.3
OH 45.8 48.3 51.3 47.1 50.1
PA 44.3 47.2 48.2 46.1 45.6
VA 42.3 44.6 44.4 43.2 48.4
WI 40.3 42.9 47.2 44.3 47.4
AVERAGE 44.1 46.6 48.0 45.6 48.9

No automatic alt text available.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

2016 Pre-election Model – Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote

Richard Charnin
Aug. 29, 2017

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

2016 Pre-election Model – Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote

This is for those interested in Electoral Vote math based on pre-election polls. It discusses basic probability and spreadsheet functions. You won’t see a discussion of this anywhere else.The MSM doesn’t care for critical thinking. Perhaps because they are incapable of it.

One of the methods I have used in pre-election forecast modeling is to calculate the Expected Recorded Electoral Vote as well as the True Vote. Important Note: the RECORDED EV is based on MSM pre-election polls which are usually biased for the establishment candidate. In 2016, Clinton was the establishment candidate.

As I did not have 51 state pre-election polls, I used the following method to estimate them based on the average of nine pre-election national polls and Party-ID:

1) Each state’s estimated Party-ID was calculated using the proportional change from the 2012 National Party-ID to the 2016 Gallup National Voter affiliation survey: 40% Independents, 32% Democrats and 28% Republicans.

2) The average vote shares of nine national pre-election polls were applied to the Party-ID of each state to derive the projected state vote shares.

The Expected EV is based on state win probabilities. Calculating the pre and post-election TRUE EV is much more complicated.

In the 2016 Forecast Model, Trump’s Expected EV (before undecided voters) was 305.5, exactly matching his recorded 306 EV. His Snapshot 307 EV is the sum of the EVs for states that he was projected to win. Trump led the weighted average pre-election polls (before undecided voter allocation) by 44.1-43.1%.

View the Recorded votes and two True Vote Models for all the states:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

The following steps calculate the Expected RECORDED EV:
1. Using state forecasts derived from the National Gallup Voter Affiliation survey, calculate the probability P(i) of winning each state using Trump’s projected 2-party vote share. Assume a 3.0% margin of error.
P(i) = normdist(Trump%/(Trump%+Clinton%),0.5,.03/1.96,true)

2. Multiply the state win probability by the state electoral vote.
S(i) = P(i)* EV(i), i =1,51
3. Expected EV = sum [P(i)* EV(i)], i = 1,51

View the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1036175945
State Electoral votes are in the range B129:B179
Trump’s state forecasts are in the range D129:D179
Corresponding state win probabilities are in the range J129:J179

The Expected EV calculation is in cell I128.
Expected EV = 305.5 = sumproduct(J129:J179, B129:B179)

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 29, 2017 in 2016 election, electoral vote

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

Richard Charnin
Aug.28, 2017

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

Pollsters no longer ask the question “How did you vote in the last election”? Why? Because posing the question provides an analyst with data to indicate election fraud.

In 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, in order to match the recorded vote (SOP), the exit pollsters (who work for the MSM) required a greater turnout of Bush voters from the prior election than were still alive. This is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. If the exit poll is impossible, the recorded vote it was forced to match must also be impossible. That is proof of fraud. It’s why the exit pollsters (the MSM) no longer ask the question “Who Did You Vote for in the Last Election”?

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

These 2016 models calculate a true vote estimate for each state.
Model 1: Obama and Romney voter turnout in 2016.
Model 2: Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation. Used in the 2016 forecast model.

Base case vote shares were identical in each model. The shares were forced to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout. To calculate the True Vote, returning Obama voter turnout in 2016 was adjusted to 89%. The assumption is that 6% of Obama voters were Bernie Sanders 2016 primary voters who did not return to vote in the presidential election.

Important note: Since the vote shares were forced to match a likely fraudulent recorded vote (the Mainstream Media was heavily biased for Clinton), the following results are conservative. Trump probably did at least 2% better than indicated in the base case calculations. View the sensitivity analysis.

So how can we determine Obama and Romney returning voter turnout in 2016? Where can we get that information? Why don’t the exit pollsters provide the data? Should we just guess or estimate turnout based on historical elections? I chose the latter.

Using the prior 2012 vote as a basis, a voter mortality estimate is factored in. Approximately 4% of voters pass between each election (1% annual mortality). The simplest approach is to assume an equal 95% turnout of Obama and Romney voters still living. Now we have a plausible approximation of the (unknown) mix of returning voters. Since we know the current election recorded vote, the number of new 2016 voters who did not vote in 2012 can be calculated: DNV = 2016 total vote – returning 2012 voters.

The first step is to force the candidate shares of returning voters to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout.

In the True Vote calculation, the percentage of returning Obama voters was lowered to 89% to reflect disenchantment among Bernie Sanders’ primary voters who did not vote in the general election or voted for Jill Stein or Donald Trump.

To view the sensitivity of the True Vote to Trump shares of returning Obama and Romney voters, a matrix of total vote shares is calculated in 1% increments around the Trump base case estimate. There are 25 vote share scenario combinations in the 5×5 matrix. Corresponding matrices of Clinton shares and vote margins are also included. The base case is in the central cell.

2016 Presidential State Election Model Summary
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

Recorded Vote
Clinton: 48.25-46.17% (2.83 million votes)
Trump: 306 Electoral Votes

Model 1
(returning 2012 voters)
2012 recorded vote: Obama 51.03-Romney 47.19% (4.98 million)
2016 voter turnout: Obama 89%, Romney 95%
Trump: 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
Trump: 323 Electoral Votes

Model 2
Gallup National Voter Affiliation Survey: 32D-28R-40I (state adjusted)
1. Trump and Clinton split the undecided vote:
Trump: 46.8-45.8% (1.35 million votes)
Trump: 307 Electoral Votes

2. Trump had 75% of the undecided vote:
Trump: 48.1-44.5% (4.97 million votes)
Trump: 352 Electoral Votes

The National Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1768941212

Vote share sensitivity analysis (Model 1)
-Best case: Trump had 92% of returning Romney voters and 9% of Obama voters
Trump by 49.4-45.0% (5.98 million votes)
-Base case: Trump had 90% of returning Romney voters and 7% of Obama voters
Trump by 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
-Worst case: Trump had 88% of returning  Romney voters and 5% of Obama voters
Clinton by 48.3-46.1% (2.97 million votes).

Mathematical Proof: the 2004 election was stolen
The 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible as it was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) using an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters. It indicated that 52.6 million (43% of the 2004 electorate) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 45.3 million (37%) were returning Gore voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. It indicated an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004.

2004 Election Fraud
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/2004-election-fraud-overwhelming-statistical-proof-that-it-was-stolen/

2004 Spreadsheet 1
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=7

2004 Spreadsheet 2
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=13

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 28, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2016 State Presidential True Vote Model

2016 State Presidential True Vote Model

Richard Charnin
Aug. 25, 2017

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

This is an analysis of the presidential vote in each of the 50 states and DC. To view the calculations for any state, just click the State tab. No input is required.

Since the 2012 election,  exit pollsters no longer provide the crosstab Who did you vote for in the previous election?  Like all crosstabs, it was matched to the recorded vote.  The  Trump, Clinton and 3rd party shares of returning Obama and Romney voters are not available. However we can closely approximate the crosstab  by calculating the shares required to match the recorded vote.

National Result
Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.87 million (48.25-46.14%).
Trump had 306 electoral votes.
Trump won the True Vote by 1.69 million (47.61-46.37%). He had 323 electoral votes.

Note:  Trump must have done better than the model indicates, since it uses vote shares derived to match the recorded vote that was biased for Clinton.

Assumptions

  • Recorded vote: 95% turnout of Obama and Romney voters in 2016. Vote shares are forced to match the state recorded vote.
  • True Vote: 89% turnout of Obama voters and 95% turnout of Romney voters.  Vote shares remain the same as used in the recorded vote.  The assumption is that 6% of Obama voters who were for Bernie Sanders in the primary did not return to vote in the presidential election. But an unknown number voted for Jill Stein and Donald Trump.

View the data and calculations for each state.  For instance, click the FL tab.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=517146616 

This sheet contains a Recorded and True Vote summary for  each state.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

Sensitivity Analysis
To see the effects of  changes in returning vote share assumptions, view the Sensitivity Matrix. It contains 25 scenarios of Trump and Clinton vote shares in one percent increments above and below the base case. The base case is the central cell  of the matrix.

Note: the difference between Recorded and True Vote is assumed strictly due to 2012 voter turnout in 2016. Granted, this is a simplifying assumption which is obviously not the case for each state.

 
 

Tags: ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis