RSS

Tag Archives: sensitivity analysis

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 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 Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Assumption
Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

Reg Voter  Gallup Base Case
Turnout Voter Affil Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
70% Ind 38% 40% 50% 5% 5%
65% Dem 31% 88% 8% 1% 3%
70% Rep 27% 7% 89% 3% 1%
Vote share 100.0% 45.2% 48.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Votes 136.2 61.6 65.8 4.4 4.4
Trump %
Dem   Rep Turnout      
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.1%
64% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9%
65% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7%
66% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5%
67% 47.6% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3%
Trump Vote
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.6 66.8
64% 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.6
65% 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3
66% 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8 66.1
67% 64.9 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8
Clinton %
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 45.2% 45.0% 44.9% 44.7% 44.5%
64% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9% 44.7%
65% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9%
66% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1%
67% 45.9% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2%
Trump %  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.5%
64% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2%
65% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8%
66% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.4%
67% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1%
Trump  Vote  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2
64% 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7
65% 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
66% 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7
67% 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

2016 True Vote Sensitivity analysis: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Feb. 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 Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of the 2016 Presidential True Vote. 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 (80% for Clinton). View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast,  over one million  Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via  Crosscheck,  a system which eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls.

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. The results confirm other analyses which show that Trump won the popular vote.

Let TV = True Vote
RV = Recorded vote
Then we have:
RV = TV + Fraud

Given:
Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6
Election fraud components:
F =Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
I = Illegal voters (non-citizens)
U = Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
I = 3  million: 2.4 million voted for Clinton,  0.6 million for Trump
U =7 million: 5.6 million voted for Clinton, 1.4 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 2.8 million: 67.7-64.9 (48.3-46.3%)

Sensitivity Analysis
Given: U=7 million (5.6 million to Clinton, 1.4 million to Trump)
Worst case: (I=4 million, F=3 million) Clinton wins by 0.83 million
Base case: (I=3 million, F=4 million) Trump wins by 2.77 million
Best case: (I=2 million, F= 5 million) Trump wins by 3.57 million

Assume the following changes to the base case assumptions:
I = 2  million: 1.6 million voted for Clinton,  0.4 million for Trump
U = 3 million: 2.7 million voted for Clinton, 0.3 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 4.0 million: 66.8-62.8 (48.7-45.8%)

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/

Number of Latino Eligible Voters Is Increasing Faster Than the Number of Latino Voters in Presidential Election Years

 Base Case Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61
    48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal -3.0 -2.4 -0.6 0
Uncounted +7.0 5.6 1.4 0
Vote Flip  – -4.0 4.0 0
True Vote 140.22 64.9 67.7 7.6
 Base Case   46.3% 48.3% 5.4%
Illegals  4.0 3.0  2.0
Flip  Trump
5.0 67.7 67.9 68.1
4.0 67.5 67.7 67.9
3.0 65.9 66.1 66.3
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Trump %
5.0 48.3% 48.4% 48.6%
4.0 48.1% 48.3% 48.4%
3.0 47.0% 47.1% 47.3%
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Clinton %
5.0 46.3% 46.2% 46.0%
4.0 46.4% 46.3% 46.2%
3.0 47.6% 47.4% 47.3%
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Trump
Flip  Margin
5.0 2.77 3.17 3.57
4.0 2.37 2.77 3.17
3.0 -0.83 -0.43 -0.03
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sensitivity Analysis: Ohio Unadjusted Exit Poll Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Jan. 11, 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

Sensitivity Analysis shows that the Ohio unadjusted exit poll which indicated a virtual 47% tie was implausible. Clinton had to win a solid majority of Independents given her recorded shares of Democrats and Republicans.

Trump won Ohio by 51.7-43.6%. But the unadjusted poll indicates that he won by just 47.1-47.0%. Assuming the unadjusted poll is accurate, the 8% discrepancy indicates a virtual 100% probability of election fraud favoring Trump. But let’s take a closer look.

The final Ohio exit poll (which is always matched to the recorded vote) indicated that Trump won Independents by 51-38%. To match the unadjusted poll, Clinton needed to win Independents by 50-35%, an extremely implausible discrepancy.

Trump led Independents in nine national pre-election polls by 43.6-33.8%. He also led Independents in the National Exit Poll by 46-42%.

A sensitivity analysis of Trump’s and Clinton’s Ohio vote share revealed that Trump had nearly 50% using conservative assumptions below the base case recorded vote.

The Ohio final exit poll indicated that Trump won 89% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats and 51% of Independents which resulted in his 51.7-43.6% win.

I calculated Trump’s total vote share for three cases assuming he had 7-12% of Democratic shares and 87-89% of Republican shares.

The exit poll party-ID is used in cases 1-2. The Gallup-adjusted Party ID was used in case 3.

1.Unadjusted Exit poll (Clinton won Independents by 50-35%)
2.Recorded Vote (assume Trump won Independents by 51-38%)
3.True Vote (assume Trump won Independents by 51-38%)

In cases 4-6, Trump’s total share was calculated over a range of his shares of Independents and Republicans.

A sensitivity analysis of the Ohio RACE exit poll demographic confirmed that Trump had at least 50%.

Conclusion: It is a mistake to ASSUME that the unadjusted 2016 exit polls were accurate, even though I proved that they were close to the True Vote in 1988-2008. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1904912692

Reported Vote
OHIO Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 38% 51% 8% 3%
Calc 100% 43.6% 51.8% 3.1% 1.6%
Reported 100% 43.6% 51.7% 3.2% 1.6%
Votes 5,496 2,394 2,841 174 46
    Margin 447 8.1%
     
    Trump % Dem    
  % Rep 7% 9% 12%
89% 50.1% 50.8% 51.8%
88% 49.7% 50.4% 51.4%
87% 49.4% 50.0% 51.1%
Trump % Ind
% Rep 35% 45% 51%
89% 47.2% 50.1% 51.8%
88% 46.8% 49.7% 51.4%
87% 46.4% 49.3% 51.1%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 11, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

Exit Poll Party-ID: Sanders vs. Clinton

Richard Charnin
July 17,  2016

Richard Charnin

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

The model  calculates Sanders vs. Clinton True Vote vote shares based on the latest  Party-ID preference polls of Independent and Democratic voters.  Note that in just two years, Independents  have increased from 24.2% to  43% of the electorate.  They represent 57.3% of the 2-party preference mix. 

2014      2016    
Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+  Dem)  Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+ Dem)
40.5% 24.2% 37.4%  32% 43% 57.3%

Election fraud cost Sanders the primaries.  

Independents voted heavily for Sanders. The impossible/implausible Sanders and Clinton shares of Democrats that were required to match the recorded vote proves that the recorded vote was also impossible/implausible.

Given:
25 adjusted primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV) and
1- Independent and Democratic Party-ID mix
2- Recorded Primary vote shares
3- Sanders’ share of Independents (adjusted state primary exit poll)

Gallup Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculate:
Sanders’ share of Democrats required to match the primary recorded vote

Results:
The required share is impossible (-16% < 1%) in 7 primares:
AL CT SC MS AR FL IA

The required share is implausible (2 < 18%) in 11 primaries:
 TN GA TX NV VA NY MA NC MD OH PA

The required share is plausible (> 25%) in 9 primaries:
IN NH MI IL WV MO OK WI  VT

Example: In Massachusetts, Sanders had 66.7% of Independents. He had to have an implausibly low 9.1% of Democrats to match his 49.3% share. If he had 25%, he would have won the primary with 54%.


MA……… Pct Sanders Clinton
IND……. 69.8% 66.7% 33.3%
Dem……. 30.2%  9.1% 90.9%
Total….. 100%  49.3% 50.7%
Recorded…….. 49.3% 50.7%

———————————————–

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

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%

CA 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%

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sensitivity Analysis I and II
1-Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
2-Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 56-44%

Sensitivity Analysis I
1-Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Independents range from 45-65% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.

Sensitivity Analysis II
1-Sanders has 35-55% of Democrats.
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Party-ID: Independents 55%; Democrats 45% (held constant).
Result: Sanders wins 22 of 25 Scenarios..

Sensitivity I          
Sanders% DEM  45%   IND    
  45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Sanders% IND   Sanders Vote share
75% 59% 60% 62% 63% 65%
70% 56% 58% 59% 60% 61%
65% 54% 55% 56% 57% 58%
60% 52% 53% 53% 54% 55%
55% 50% 50% 51% 51% 52%
Sensitivity II          
Independents 55%   Sanders% IND    
  55% 60% 65% 70% 75%
Sanders% DEM   Sanders Vote share
55% 55% 58% 61% 63% 66%
50% 53% 56% 58% 61% 64%
45% 51% 53% 56% 59% 62%
40% 48% 51% 54% 57% 59%
35% 46% 49% 52% 54% 57%

View the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 

 

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on July 17, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

Richard Charnin
April 18, 2016

You can listen to the pundits who told you that Hillary is leading by 17%, implying that it is all over and it’s time to just anoint Hillary, so why even bother to vote? Or you can actually go out and vote.

Now these so-called  election forecasters (who never mention the fraud factor) are going to try and project the vote to within 1% – with Hillary winning of course. I’m not going to tell you what the final vote will be. I’m not that smart.

But I will say this: Win or lose, Bernie will do much better than reported in the media.

So do the forecast. Below is a matrix table which shows approximately how Bernie will do if he gets 45-65% of the white vote and 45-65% of non-whites. That’s 25 scenarios. It’s called a sensitivity analysis.  Bernie’s total vote share is a function of his share of whites and non-whites.

Fully expect that one of the 25 scenarios will closely match Bernie’s final recorded vote.

Know this: if the CNN exit poll indicates that Bernie had 45% of whites and 45% of non-whites (or 45% overall) do not believe it. In fact, expect that Bernie will do 5-8% better than the recorded vote. Remember the exit poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote.

So here goes.  Pick out the cell which contains Bernie’s share that you believe will be closest to the final recorded vote. In other words predict Bernie’s recorded share of the white vote and non-white vote, knowing that it will surely understate his True Vote.

For instance, cell C2 = 56.2%

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Race………….. NYReg Sanders Clinton
White…………… 76.6% 55.0% 45.0%
Non-white……… 23.4% 60.0% 40.0%
TOTAL…………….100% 56.2% 43.8%

………………………..Sanders % White
……………………..45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0%
………………………A……..B……..C……..D…….E
%Non-White………………. Sanders TOTAL
1. 65.0%………….. 49.7% 53.5% 57.3% 61.2% 65.0%
2. 60.0%………….. 48.5% 52.3% 56.2% 60.0% 63.8%
3. 55.0%………….. 47.3% 51.2% 55.0% 58.8% 62.7%
4. 50.0%………….. 46.2% 50.0% 53.8% 57.7% 61.5%
5. 45.0%………….. 45.0% 48.8% 52.7% 56.5% 60.3%

 
14 Comments

Posted by on April 18, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

2014 NC Senate: Election models indicate that it was likely stolen

Richard Charnin
Jan. 28, 2016

Election Models indicate that the 2014 North Carolina senate election was likely stolen.
Willis (R) defeated Hagan (D) by 45,000 votes (48.8-47.3%).

I. True Vote Model

Given: Obama lost NC in 2012 by 92,000 recorded votes (50.4-48.4%).
Hagan wins by 17,000 votes (48.5-47.9%)

Assume Obama won the True Vote by 185,000 votes (51.4-47.4%),
Hagan wins by 155,000 votes (50.9-45.5%) 

Base Case Assumptions
Assume Obama won in 2012 by 51.4-47.4%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters
3) Willis had  90% of Romney voters
4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012.
Hagan  wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

II. Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 41.7%- Republicans 30.4%- Independents 27.8%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 35.0%- Independents 29.0%
Party-ID was adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

Assumptions:
Party Registration split
61% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans turned out.
Hagan wins by 50.9-45.4% (161,000 votes).

III. Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 260,000 of 3.17 million votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Hagan had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Hagan wins by 206,000 votes (51.6-45.1%)

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/pub

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Maine 2014 Governor: Three models indicate a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Jan. 26, 2016

Three election models  indicate that the 2014 Maine governor election was likely stolen.

Lepage (R) defeated Michaud (D) by 30,000 votes (48.3-43.3%)
Obama won Maine in 2012 by 109,000 recorded votes (56.3-41.0%).  

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Michaud had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Lepage had  87% of Romney voters
4) Michaud  had 45% and Lepage 39% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Michaud won by 51,000 votes: 50.3-41.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 23.7% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Michaud has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 23,000 votes with 47.7%.

Best case scenario: Michaud has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 88,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 44,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 67,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 31.9%- Republicans 27.1%- Independents 41.0%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 30.0%- Republicans 31.0%- Independents 39.0%
76.2% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 74% of Democrats and 78.8% of Republicans turned out.
Michaud wins by 49.2-42.3% (42,000 votes),

To match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 29% of  Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 37% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 33,000 of 642,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Michaud had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Michaud won by 71,000 votes (51.1-40.0%)

 

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 26, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis