RSS

Tag Archives: true vote model

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 2016

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 (E-book)
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

This post will be an historical overview of how major advances in technology prove that election fraud is systemic. There were three major turning points:

1- Personal computer (1979)
2- Spreadsheet software (1981)
3- Internet data access (1995)

A BRIEF HISTORY

Before the advent of the personal computer,  mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals  in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. I programmed the 7094 IBM mainframe , a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. I was hired by Merrill Lynch on Wall Street as a manager of software development in Investment Banking. I continued to program in FORTRAN- this time for financial models.

In the late 70s, the personal computer became available. They were considered as toys (myself included) until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden, I could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. When Lotus 1-2-3 became available in 1982, it had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately began to convert my financial FORTRAN programs to spreadsheets – and added graphics capabilities. I continued to use Lotus as a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations until 1995 when I switched to Excel (which was used along with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models).

THE MATRIX DEFINITION

A matrix is just a table of numbers. The table consists of elements in cells (column, row). Matrix algebra is an advanced subject which deals with mathematical operations performed on matrices.  The functions are available in spreadsheets.

We are only interested in  basic arithmetic operations; they are sufficient to prove election fraud. In traditional programming, matrices are expressed as arrays.

Adjusted Exit Polls: The Matrix of Deceit

This is how the actual exit poll results were changed to conform to the recorded vote. The pollsters changed the true results in all exit polls.

1) They ignored the respondents answer to the question: “Who did you just vote for?”
2) They changed all unadjusted exit poll crosstabs including the Smoking Gun: “How Did You Vote in the last election?”

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes, not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll  was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)
Total Gore Bush Nader Other
13,108 6,359 6,065 523 161
48.51% 46.27% 3.99% 1.23%

 

Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 17,732 16% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 48,763 44% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,464 32% 7% 91% 2%
Perot/other 8,866 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total cast 110,825 100% 50.68% 45.60% 3.72%
110,825 56,166 50,536 4,123

 

Final National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 18,982 18% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 42,183 40% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,856 34% 7% 91% 2%
Other 8,437 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total 105,458 100% 48.38% 47.87% 3.75%
105,458 51,004 50,456 3,998

 

2004

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and  State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. But he lost the Final National Exit Poll which was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondetns)
. Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 47.0% 1.3%

 

Unadjusted National Exit Poll
(implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.38% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48,248 38.37% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49,670 39.50% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4,703 3.74% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 51.8% 46.8% 1.5%
125,737 65,070 58,829 1,838

 

Final Adjusted National Exit Poll
(Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV 20,790 17% 54% 44% 2%
Gore 45,249 37% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93%
Bush 52,586 43% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110%
Other 3,669 3% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Total 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% 100,185 94%
59,031 62,040 1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll with 61% (a 30 million vote margin) and the  State Exit Poll aggregate with 58% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents)
Obama McCain Other
17,836 10,873 6,641 322
100% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

 

Final National Exit poll
(forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER Mix Obama McCain Other
Male 47% 49% 49% 2%
Female 53% 56% 43% 1%
Share 100% 52.87% 45.59% 1.54%
Votes(mil) 131.463 69.50 59.94 2.02

 

Unadjusted 2008 NEP
Voted 2004 2008 Exact match to TVM & unadj state exit pollls
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.66 13.43% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 50.18% 57.11 43.44% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 44.62% 50.78 38.63% 17% 82% 1%
Other 5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 58.00% 40.35% 1.65%
Votes 131.463 76.25 53.04 2.17

 

Final 2008 NEP
(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted 2004 2008 impossible no. returning Bush voters)
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.09 13% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 42.53% 48.64 37% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 52.87% 60.47 46% 17% 82% 1%
Other 4.60% 5.26 4% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes 131.463 69.50 59.95 2.02

2004 Sensitivity Analysis

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_foUi89DGNmwspKRFTgh5tOjjba4el2GLJEJLK-M2V8/edit#gid=0

How is Kerry’s vote share effected by changes in vote share assumptions? Consider the following matrices (tables). He wins all plausible scenarios.

  Kerry share of returning Gore voters
Share of 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
Bush Kerry Vote Share
12.0% 53.2% 53.6% 54.1% 54.5% 54.9%
11.0% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.5%
10.0% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1%
9.0% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
8.0% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.4%
      Margin    
12.0% 9,827 10,859 11,892 12,924 13,956
11.0% 8,871 9,903 10,935 11,967 13,000
10.0% 7,914 8,946 9,978 11,011 12,043
9.0% 6,957 7,990 9,022 10,054 11,086
8.0% 6,001 7,033 8,065 9,097 10,130
2004 Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
Bush   Kerry Vote Share  
12.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.4% 54.8%
11.0% 53.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.0% 54.4%
10.0% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6% 54.0%
9.0% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6%
8.0% 51.8% 52.2% 52.5% 52.9% 53.2%
      Margin    
12.0% 10,098 10,995 11,892 12,789 13,686
11.0% 9,141 10,038 10,935 11,832 12,729
10.0% 8,184 9,081 9,978 10,876 11,773
9.0% 7,228 8,125 9,022 9,919 10,816
8.0% 6,271 7,168 8,065 8,962 9,859
Kerry Win Probability  53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0%  61.0%
MoE : 3.0% Win Prob
12.0% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0%
11.0% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0%
10.0% 98.4% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9%
9.0% 97.2% 98.4% 99.1% 99.6% 99.8%
8.0% 95.1% 97.0% 98.3% 99.1% 99.5%
 

Tags: , , , , ,

Presidential Electoral Vote Simulation Model: 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012


Presidential Electoral Vote Simulation Model: 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012

Richard Charnin
Feb. 16, 2016

Look inside the books:
Proving Election Fraud 
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Each simulation is based on the 2-party unadjusted state exit polls and recorded vote shares. The Total Electoral Vote is calculated based on the results of 500 election simulation trials. 

The probability of winning each state is required to calculate the probability of winning 270 Electoral Votes. The state win probability is based on the two-party exit poll (or recorded vote share) and the margin of error (MoE). Win Prob = NORMDIST (vote share, 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)

The Electoral Vote Win probability is the number of winning simulation trials / 500.

Run the simulation

Input Code
Enter an input code (1-8) in cell A6  to indicate the election and the simulation method: state exit polls or recorded votes. For example, code 3 indicates the 2004 exit polls.

2000: 1- exit poll, 2- recorded votes
2004: 3- exit poll, 4- recorded votes
2008: 5- exit poll, 6- recorded votes

2000
Gore defeated Bush by  544,000 recorded votes but lost the electoral vote. But Gore won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.7-45.6%. Given 105.4 million recorded votes, the exit polls indicated that Gore won by at least 5 million votes. He led the exit polls in 11 states with 154 electoral votes which all flipped to Bush. If Gore had captured just ONE of the 11 states, he would have won the election.

2004
Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Kerry had a 48.3% recorded share and 252 EV and lost by 62-59 million votes. 

In order to match the 2004 recorded vote, the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated an impossible 110% turnout of 52.6 million living Bush 2000 voters in 2004.

Uunadjusted state and national exit polls indicated that Kerry had 51-52% and won by 5-6 million votes with 349 EV. Seven states with 97 electoral votes flipped from Kerry in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote: CO,FL,IA,MO,NV,OH,VA. Kerry would have had 349 electoral votes had he won the states. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

2008
Obama had a 52.9% recorded share (a 9.5 million vote margin) and 365 electoral votes. But he had a 58% share in the unadjusted state exit polls (matched by the True Vote Model) which indicates that he won by 23 million votes and had 420 electoral votes.

Obama led the unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents, 2% MoE) by 61-37%, an astounding 30 million vote margin.

2012
Only 31 states were exit polled. The  unadjusted state and national exit polls were not available so the State True Vote Model shares were used for the simulation. Obama had 55% of early voters and 59% of 11.7 million late provisional and absentee ballots. But he lost on Election Day by 50-48% for a 51-47% total margin. The True Vote Model indicated that he had at least 55%.

Simulation Posts:

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/a-simple-expected-electoral-vote-formula-simulation-or-meta-analysis-not-required/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/monte-carlo-simulation-election-forecasting-and-exit-poll-modeling/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/1968-2012-presidential-election-fraud-an-interactive-true-vote-model-proof/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-2004-2008-county-presidential-true-vote-database-model/

 
 

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: , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,022 other followers