RSS

Tag Archives: true vote model

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: , , , , , , ,

KS 2014 Governor Election: Four models indicate fraud

Richard Charnin

Jan. 27, 2016

Four election models indicate that the 2014 Kansas governor election may have been stolen. Brownback (R) defeated Davis (D) by 33,000 votes (49.9-46.1%).

I Cumulative Vote Shares

PhD Mathematician Beth Clarkson has sued for the KS poll tapes

Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.

II True Vote Model

Obama lost Kansas in 2012 by 252,000 recorded votes (59.7-38.0%).

Base Case Assumptions
1) 66% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Davis had 93% of returning Obama voters
3) Brownback had  78% of Romney voters
4) Davis had 50% and Brownback 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case Scenario: Davis wins by 1,000 votes: 48.1-48.0%
Note: Obama had 42% in the final pre-election poll. If Obama’s True Vote was 41%,  then Davis won the True Vote by 50-46%.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Davis has 89% of returning Obama and 17% of Romney voters.
Davis loses by 40,000 votes with 45.7%.

Best case scenario: Davis has 97% of Obama and 21% of Romney voters.
Davis wins by 41,000 votes with 50.5%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 64% of Obama and 68% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis loses by 15,000 votes with 47.1%.

Best case scenario: 68% of Obama and 64% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Davis wins by 17,000 votes with 49.0%.

III Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 25%- Republicans 47%- Independents 28%
Party registration: Democrats 24.3%- Republicans 44.1%- Independents 31.6%
62.7% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 62.7% of Democrats and 62.7% of Republicans turned out.

Davis wins by 48.1-48.0%
To match the recorded vote, Brownback needed 13% of  Democrats, 79% of Republicans and 38% of Independents.

IV Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 113,000 of 962,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Davis had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Davis wins by 62,000 votes (51.2-44.8%)

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 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

2014 VT Governor: The Democrat won, but why was it so close?

Three election models indicate that the 2014 Vermont governor election was almost stolen. Shumlin (D) defeated Milne (R) by just 2,000 votes (46.4-45.3%)

Obama won Vermont in 2012 by 95,000 recorded votes (66.1-31.0%).

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 55% turnout of Obama and 65% turnout of Romney voters
2) Shumlin had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Milne had 93% of Romney voters
4) Shumlin and Milne each had 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Shumlin won by 27,000 votes: 54.3-40.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Milne needed 22.4% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Shumlin has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 16,000 votes with 51.5%.

Best case scenario: Shumlin has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Shumlin wins by 38,000 votes with 57.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014
Worst case scenario: 53% of Obama and 67% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 22,000 votes with 53.0%.

Best case scenario: 57% of Obama and 63% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Shumlin wins by 32,000 votes with 55.6%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 47%- Republicans 31%- Independents 22%
59.9% of registered voters turned out.

Assumption: 59.9% of Democrats and 59.9% of Republicans turned out.
Shumlin wins by 53.4-39.2%

To match the recorded vote, Milne needed 19% of Democrats, 89% of Republicans and 40% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 11,000 of 205,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Shumlin had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Shumlin won by 55.4-38.9%.

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 27, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2016

Oregon 2014 Governor: Models confirm prior analysis of honest elections
Kitzhaber (D) defeated Richardson (R ) by 85,000 votes (50.3-44.2%)

Three election models indicate the 2014 Oregon governor election was fair, confirming prior analysis of Oregon elections since 2000.

http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx

True Vote Model

Obama won Oregon in 2012 by 206,000  votes (54.2-42.1%).  

Base Case Assumptions

1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Kitzhaber had 87% of returning Obama voters
3) Richardson had  90% of Romney voters
4) Kitzhaber had 44% and Richardson 46% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Kitzhaber won by 91,000 votes: 50.3-44.2%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares
Worst case scenario: Kitzhaber has 83% of returning Obama and 3% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 11,000 votes with 47.6%.

Best case scenario: KItzhaber has 91% of Obama and 7% of Romney voters.
Kitzhaber wins by 170,000 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.
Kitzhaber wins by 63,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Kitzhaber wins by 118,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 37.8%- Republicans 29.9%- Independents 32.3%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 24.0%- Independents 40.0%

67.5% of registered voters turned out.
Assumptions: 67.5% of Democrats and 67.5% of Republicans turned out.
Kitzhaber wins by 50.3-44.1% (91,000 votes).

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 27, 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: , , , , , ,

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

2014 Michigan Governor: Three election models indicate likely fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan. 25, 2016

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

An analysis of three election models indicates that the 2014 Michigan governor election may have been stolen.

Snyder (R ) defeated Schauer (D) by 130,000 votes (51.0-46.8%)

True Vote Model

Given: Obama won Michigan in 2012 by 450,000 recorded votes (54.1-44.6%).  
This is conservative; he likely did better.

Base Case Assumptions
1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Schauer had 91% of returning Obama voters
3) Snyder had  91% of Romney voters
4) Schauer and Snyder each had 48% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case True Vote: Schauer won by 223,000 votes: 52.4-45.3%
In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 18.7% of Obama voters

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worse case scenario: Schauer has 87% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 52,000 votes with 49.7%.

Best case scenario: Schauer has 95% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Schauer wins by 393,000 votes with 55.1%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worse case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 145,000 votes with 51.2%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Schauer wins by 300,000 votes with 53.7%.

Voter Turnout Model

Exit Poll Party-ID: In order to match the recorded vote, Snyder needed 9.6% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans and a whopping 64% of Independents.

Actual Party registration: Democrats 44%- Republicans 37%- Independents 19%
Given: 60.8% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 59% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans turned out.
Schauer wins by 50.4-47.4% (94,000 votes)

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 278 thousand of 3.416 million votes cast were uncounted.

Assumption: Schauer had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Schauer won by 368,000 votes (54.3-43.5%)

Jan BenDor writes:

We already knew of this fraud from our analysis of the Detroit Mayoral election in 2009 and the Gubernatorial election in 2010. The ES&S ballot programmers, who serviced all brands of the machines, were all former Michigan Republican officials or their employees. Only three counties had their own in-house ballot programmers sworn to an oath to obey the laws and Constitution. In addition, the state requires no accounting for unused blank ballots left in the custody of the elected local Clerk. This provides a huge opportunity for absentee ballot fraud, and ballot chaining.

In 2004, when counties were ordered to decide on one brand of optical scan machine, in order to spend the state’s HAVA grant, the Republican Clerks went with their favorites, Diebold and ES&S. Sequoia was left out in the cold–it had the best security. I asked the vendor what happened to his bid. The owner of the company, Barry Miller, told me, “I have been a Republican all of my life. But I guess I didn’t give enough money to their candidates.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 25, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2014 Election Fraud: Four statistical models

2014 Election Fraud:  Four Statistical Models

Richard Charnin
Dec. 28, 2015
Updated: Jan.18, 2016

This post reviews the following statistical models which strongly indicate fraud in the 2014 Governor elections:
1) True Vote Model, 2) Cumulative Vote Shares, 3) Voter Registration vs. Exit Poll Party-ID, 4) Uncounted Votes Cast (Census).

Democratic Vote Shares: Statistical Summary

Dem Vote% CVS TVM Census D/R ExitP D/R Registered
KY 43.8 49.1 48.0 49.3 na 54-39
MD * 47.2 52.9 56.4 59.1 na 55-26
WI 46.7 50.2 51.6 51.3 36-37 43-41
FL 47.1 51.1 49.7 50.9 31-35 39-35
IL 46.4 54.4 54.2 54.8 43-30 47-35
MA 46.6 55.9 55.6 56.5 na 35-11
CO 49.1 na 50.7 53.1 28-32 31-33
GA 44.8 na 48.2 52.2 35-37 39-43
KS 46.1 na 48.3 52.0 25-48 24-44
ME 43.3 na 51.5 52.3 30-31 33-27
MI 46.8 na 52.4 54.3 39-30 44-37
OH 32.9 na 37.7 41.7 32-36 41-42


Cumulative Vote Shares

The CVS method  uses actual precinct votes in each county. The data is sorted by  precinct size. The votes and shares are accumulated and  displayed graphically. Typically, in the biggest counties, Democratic shares peak at the 10% CVS mark and decline at the final 100% (recorded vote). This is counter-intuitive because a) the most populous counties are in urban locations which are strongly Democratic and b) as the number of votes are accumulated, the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) should result in a Steady state of equibrium in which Democratic and Republican vote shares are nearly constant.

Click these links to view the summary 2014 CVS analysis (each has a  link to the precinct votes for each county):  IL  FL  WI  MD MA  KY

The True Vote Model (TVM)

The 2012 presidential election is used as a basis for returning 2014 voters. There are two options for estimating  returning voters: the Recorded Vote and estimated True Vote.

The TVM closely matched the CVS in all governor elections except  for Maryland.  Hogan(R) won the recorded vote by 51.0- 47.2%, a 66,000 vote margin.  Brown(D) won the True Vote by 56.4-41.9%, a 251,000 margin. The CVS analysis understates Brown’s vote since precinct votes were provided only for Election Day; early, provisional and absentee precinct voting were not included. This omission dramatically reduced  Brown’s CVS since he had 54% of the excluded votes.  Click these links to view the 2014 Governor True Vote Model:  MD  IL  FL  WI  KY MA ME  OH KS MI GA CO


Census Population Survey (CPS) Voter Turnout

In each election cycle, the Census Bureau interviews 60,000 households nationwide to estimate  how many were registered and voted in each state.The national margin of error (MoE) is 0.3% for 60,000 respondents at the 90% confidence level. The MoE is approximately 2% for each state.

In 2014, 92.2 million votes were cast  but just 78.8 million recorded. The 13.4 million discrepancy (14.5%) was greater than in any presidential election. What is going on here?

In every one of the 1968-2012 presidential elections,  votes cast exceeded the recorded vote. The percentage of uncounted votes has declined steadily since 1988, from 10.4% to 2.9% in 2012. Uncounted votes peaked at 10.6 million in 1988 and declined to near zero in 2008. Approximately 75% of uncounted votes were Democratic (50% in minority locations).

The recorded vote was adjusted  to total votes cast by adding the uncounted votes. The majority (60-75%) of uncounted votes were  assumed to be Democratic, based on the historical fact that approximately 50% of uncounted votes are in minority locations.

Uncounted Votes = Census Total Votes Cast – Votes Recorded
True Vote (est.) = Recorded Vote + Uncounted vote

Presidential  Votes Cast and Recorded

Cast Recorded Diff Pct
1968 79.0 73.0 6.0 7.6%
1972 85.8 77.7 8.1 9.4%
1976 86.7 81.5 5.2 6.0%
1980 93.1 86.6 6.5 7.0%
1984 101.9 92.7 9.2 9.0%
1988 102.2 91.6 10.6 10.4%
1992 113.9 104.4 9.5 8.3%
1996 105.0 96.4 8.6 8.2%
2000 110.8 105.6 5.2 4.7%
2004 125.7 122.3 3.4 2.7%
2008 131.1 131.4 -0.3 -0.2%
2012 132.9 129.1 3.8 2.9%
2014 92.2 78.8 13.4 14.5%

Political Party Strength 

The simplest measure of  party strength in a state’s voting population is the breakdown-by-party totals from its voter registration statistics from the websites of the Secretaries of State or the Boards of Elections. As of 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to indicate a party preference when registering to vote.

In 2014,  the party voter preference/registration split was 40.5D-35.3R-24.2I.  The  2014 National Exit Poll indicated a 35D-36R-28I Party-ID split in forcing a match to the recorded vote (Dem 46.2-Rep 52.9%). Assuming the voter registration split and the Party-ID vote shares, the Democrats  and Republicans were essentially tied.

The registered voter split for the 12 Governor elections in this analysis was 40.6D-34.4R-24.4I, a very close match to the national split.

These 22 states do not allow party preference in voter registration:
Alabama,Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The partisan “demographics”  were obtained from the state’s party registration statistics (in late 2014 whenever possible). For the 22 states that don’t allow registration by party, Gallup’s annual polling of voter party identification is the next best metric of party strength.

National Exit Poll 2014 Party-ID (match recorded vote)

Party-ID Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 35% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 36% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 29% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 46.2% 52.5% 1.9%
Registration Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 41% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 35% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 24% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 49.6% 48.7% 1.7%

 

Matching the Recorded and True Vote using the Party Registration split

To match the recorded vote,  an implausibly low  percentage of Democrats had to have voted for the Democratic candidate. Note the difference between  the percentage of Democrats required to match the recorded vote and True vote shares. Democratic and Republican candidates usually win approximately 90-92% of  registered Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Percentage Share of Registered Democrats Required to Match

 Match Recorded Vote True      Vote  Match Recorded  True Vote
MA 58.5 83.9 ME 66.6 92.0
MD 68.9 84.9 OH 53.5 92.1
KY 72.4 81.7 KS 86.1 95.5
WI 88.8 94.7 MI 75.5 88.1
FL 81.3 88.1 GA 87.7 93.3
IL 83.0 91.0 CO 88.6 93.8


 KENTUCKY

Conway (D) lost the recorded vote  by 52.5-43.8% despite the fact that the Democrats led 53.4-38.8% in voter registration. Bevin needed an implausible 24.6% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. Assuming just 81.7% of Democrats voted for Conway, he won by 48.8-47.5%, closely matching the CVS and True Vote.

According to the 2014 Census, 1.525 million total votes were cast in 2014.  In 2015, Conway won by 49.3-47.0% – assuming he had 60% of an estimated 50,000 uncounted votes.

Of 2,298,000 registered  voters, 974,000 (42.4%) voted. If  39% of Democrats voted and Conway had 88%, he won by 49.0-47.3%. If 43% of Democrats voted, he won by 54-42.3%.

Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 72.4% 24.6% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
Recorded 100% 43.8% 52.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 427 511 36

 

Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 81.7% 15.3% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
True Vote 100% 48.8% 47.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 475 463 36

 

Votes Cast Total Conway Bevin Curtis
Recorded 974 426.6 512.0 36.0
Uncounted (est) 50 30.0 18.2 1.9
2014 Census 1024 505 481 38
Adj. Share   49.3% 47.0% 3.7%

 

Party Reg Split Conway Turnout 39%  41% 43%
Democrat 53.4% 88% 18.3% 19.3% 20.2%
Repub 38.8% 6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0%
Other 7.8% 50% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7%
Conway 49.0% 51.5% 54.0%
Bevin 47.3% 44.8% 42.3%

 

MARYLAND

Hogan (R) won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.3%.  He won the CVS by a whopping Brown(D) had 53.7% of early votes, 45.3% on Election Day and 54.5% of absentee and provisional ballots. Precinct votes on touchscreens and optical scanners were provided for Election Day only.

When 295,000 uncounted votes are added to the recorded vote, Brown is the winner by 51.2-47.0% .  When  Election Day CVS  at the 10% mark is added to the 390,000 early, absentee and provisional votes, Brown is a  52.9-45.5% winner.

 Census Votes (000) Total Brown Hogan Other
True 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted (Unctd) 295 221 68 5
Total Census 2,028 1,198 794 35
Share   59.1% 39.2% 1.7%

 

Voter Reg Pct Brown Hogan Other
Democrat 54.9% 84.9% 13.1% 2.0%
Republican 25.7% 4% 95% 1.0%
Other 19.4% 45% 53% 2.0%
Share 100% 56.4% 41.9% 1.7%
Total 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted Total Brown Share Hogan Share Other Share
Early 306 164 53.7% 137 44.8% 4.5 1.5%
Election Day 1,342 608 45.3% 711 52.9% 23.5 1.7%
Absentee/prov 85 46 54.5% 37 43.4% 1.8 2.1%
 Recorded 1,733 819 47.25% 884 51.0% 30 1.7%
 CVS adj
Early/abs/prov 390 210 53.9% 174 44.5% 6 1.6%
CVS @ 10% 1,391 693 52.5% 603 45.7% 23 1.7%
Adj. Total 1,709 904 52.9% 777 45.4% 29 1.7%

Notes:- Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, did an analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies: How Trustworthy are Electronic Voting Systems in the US

– A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes:Precinct
 Size
 Matters: ­
The 
Large
 Precinct
 Bias
 in
 US 
Presidential
 Elections

– Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries:2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

– Kathy Dopp is a mathematician and an expert on election auditing. She has written a comprehensive analysis of the 2014 elections:
Were the 2014 United States Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections Manipulated?  Dopp wrote:
Is it possible electronic vote-count manipulation determines who controls government in the United States? The probability that the disparities between predicted and reported 2014 election vote margins were caused by random sampling error is virtually zero. A method for extending and simplifying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA)’s measure for necessity reveals that lack of effective post-election audits is a necessary condition for the occurrence of high levels of disparity between statewide polls and election results. Maryland’s 2014 gubernatorial contest is consistent with an explanation of vote miscount having altered its outcome.  An analysis of Maryland’s partisan voter registration, turnout, and vote data by ballot type statistically confirms vote miscount as an explanation for its unexpected outcome.

Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and Kansas gubernatorial contests exhibited sufficient disparities between polls and election results (PED) to alter election outcomes; all used inauditable voting systems or failed to conduct post-election audits (PEA)s. Vermont’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, and South Dakota PED were large but smaller than winning margins.

Kansas and North Carolina senatorial contests exhibited sufficient PED to alter election outcomes and no audits were conducted. Virginia’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Arkansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Nebraska PED magnitude were large but smaller than winning margins.

A case study of Maryland’s unexpected 2014 gubernatorial outcome affirms there is, as yet, only an explanation of vote manipulation consistent with the statistical disparity patterns in Maryland’s pre-election poll predictions, and its partisan voter registration, turnout and vote data by ballot type.

…………………………………………………………………………..

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/other/State%20User%20Note_Final.pdf

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

A Collage of Election Fraud Graphics

LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,177 other followers