Richard Charnin
July 17, 2016
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Preelection 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 PartyID 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 2party 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 PartyID 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/partyaffiliation.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) PartyID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 20142016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents
Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.
PartyID….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 5545%.
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
1Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM PartyID mix.
2Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 5644%
Sensitivity Analysis I
1Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2Sanders has 5575% of Independents.
3Independents range from 4565% of the IND/DEM PartyID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.
Sensitivity Analysis II
1Sanders has 3555% of Democrats.
2Sanders has 5575% of Independents.
3PartyID: 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/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359