RSS

Tag Archives: true vote model

Implausible: the IA Unadjusted Exit Poll

Richard Charnin
Nov. 15, 2016

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

JILL STEIN HAD JUST 1% NATIONALLY? WHERE DID HER VOTES GO? ONE GUESS.

Trump won the IA exit poll by 48.0-48.1%
Trump won the recorded vote by 51.8-42.2%.
Why the 9.5% discrepancy?
It’s due to Clinton’s implausible 42-41% Independent exit poll margin.

Recorded Vote
Trump wins: 51.8-42.2% (148,,000 vote margin)
Trump won Independents: 51-35%
Party ID: 31D- 34 R- 35I

Unadjusted IA exit poll
Trump wins: 48.0-44.1% (59,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 42-41%  (implausible)
Party ID: 31D- 34R- 35I

IA True Vote Model (no change to vote shares)
Trump wins 50.2-42.4% (119,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 51-35%
Party ID: 29.7D -29.0R -41.4I (derived from Gallup)

CNN National Exit Poll (matched to the recorded vote)
Clinton wins 47.8-47.4%
Trump won Independents: 48-42%
National Party ID: 37D- 33R- 30I

True Vote National Model
Gallup Party-ID:  32D- 28R- 40I 
Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA)
Trump wins the popular vote: 44.4-42.9% (1.6 million vote margin)
Trump wins the recorded Electoral vote: 306-232

True Vote: After Undecided Voter Allocation
Trump wins  48.5%-44.3% (5 million vote margin)
Trump wins the  Electoral Vote: 351-187

Iowa

Unadjusted  EP Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 31% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 34% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 35% 42% 41% 2% 15%
Match 100% 44.0% 48.1% 2.0% 5.9%
Unadjusted 100% 44.1% 48.0% 1.8% 6.1%
Votes (000) 1,518 669 729 27 93
    Margin 59 3.9%
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 31% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 34% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 35% 35% 51% 5% 3%
Match 100% 41.6% 51.6% 3.1% 3.8%
Reported 100% 42.2% 51.8% 3.5% 2.5%
Votes (000) 1,518 651 799 57 11
    Margin 148 10.0%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 29.7% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 29.0% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 41.4% 35% 51% 5% 3%
True Vote 100.0% 42.4% 50.2% 3.2% 4.2%
Votes (000) 1,518 643 762 49 64
    Margin 119 7.8%

View the 2016 Election Model spreadsheet

Unadjusted exit polls: http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

Summary: 8  Battleground states

Unadj Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Average 48.56% 45.64% 46.48% 49.35% 46.79% 49.47%
Diff -2.92% 2.87% 2.63%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 46.6% 50.5%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 50.7% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.7% 48.6%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.8% 47.5% 47.7%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 47.2% 56.8%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 42.4% 50.2%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 46.5% 48.0%
Unadj Exit Poll Reported Vote True Vote
% Indep Clinton  Trump Clinton Trump  Clinton Trump 
Average 46.75% 41.34% 38.31% 53.63% 34.63% 55.73%
Diff -5.41% 15.31% 21.10%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 36.5% 58.5%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 46.0% 52.0%
PA 49.0% 45.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 62.0%
MI 31.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.0% 33.5% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 30.0% 60.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 43.0% 50.0% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 40.0% 50.0% 32.0% 53.0%
 
4 Comments

Posted by on November 15, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

Implausible: the Ohio Unadjusted Exit Poll

Richard Charnin
Nov.12, 2016

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

The  unadjusted 2016 exit polls show large discrepancies to the recorded vote in battleground states. This analysis compares the Ohio reported vote, the Edison Research unadjusted exit poll, the CNN adjusted poll (matched to the recorded vote) and the True Vote Model.

Clinton led the average of nine pre-election national polls by 45.8-43.3%.
Trump led Independents by 43.6-33.8%.

Trump won the OH  reported vote by 52.0-43.5%.  But  according to the CNN published exit poll, he won by just 47.1-47.0%. Does the discrepancy indicate that votes were rigged for Trump? Not at all, the evidence indicates that he won OH as reported.

The unadjusted exit poll discrepancies are largely due to the implausible difference between Trump and Clinton’s share of Independents. To match the CNN published exit poll, Clinton must have won the Independent vote by an implausible 50-34%.

OHIO
1: CNN exit poll. Implausible.
2012 Party-ID (41D-42R-17I)
Trump 47.1- Clinton 47.0%
Independents: Clinton 47-Trump 28% (implausible)

2: CNN exit poll. Implausible.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/ohio
2016 Party-ID (34D-37R-29I)
Trump 47.1- Clinton 47.0%
Independents: Clinton 50-Trump 34%  (implausible)

3:  OH reported vote. Plausible.
2016 Party-ID (34D-37R-29I)
Trump 52.1- Clinton 43.5%
Independents: Trump 51-Clinton 38% (plausible)

4: OH True Vote Model. Plausible.
Close match to the reported vote.
2016 Party-ID (32.4D-33.4R-34.2I)
Trump 46.7- Clinton 41.6% (before undecided voter allocation)
Trump 50.5- Clinton 42.9% (after undecided voter allocation)
Independents: Trump 43.9-Clinton 32.6% (plausible)

Ohio 2016        
1 CNN EP  Implausible      
2012 Party ID 2012 Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 41% 87% 12% 1%
Rep 42% 8% 89% 3%
Ind 17% 47% 28% 25%
Calc 100% 47.0% 47.1% 5.9%
Total 100% 47.0% 47.1% 5.9%
     Margin 0.1%  
2. CNN EP Implausible      
2016 Party ID 2016 Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 34% 87% 12% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 3%
Ind 29% 50% 34% 16%
Calc 100% 47.0% 46.9% 6.1%
Total 100% 47.0% 47.1% 5.9%
     Margin 0.1%  
         
3. CNN Reported  Plausible      
 2016 Party ID Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 34% 87% 12% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 3%
Ind 29% 38% 51% 11%
Calc 100% 43.6% 51.8% 4.6%
Reported  100% 43.5% 52.1% 4.4%
   Plausible Margin 8.2%  
       
4. True Vote Model Party ID  Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32.4% 89% 6% 5%
Rep 33.4% 5% 89% 6%
Ind 34.2% 32.6% 43.9% 6.6%
Calc 94.9% 41.6% 46.7% 6.6%
TVM after UVA  100% 42.9 50.5% 6.6%
 UVA:  Undecided  Voter Allocation  25% 75%   

View the  spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1141167047

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/ohio#president

Unadjusted exit polls: http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

2016-presidential-election-table_nov-10-2016

 
11 Comments

Posted by on November 12, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , ,

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

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

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex. 

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud?  That is true;  unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

Nate must be unaware of this fact: According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by  the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling. 

It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote. 

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:  

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

  • I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

  • All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.
  • In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.
  • The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  
  • In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.
  • The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).  Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data:
Reluctant Bush ResponderEvaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from.  They come from the experts cited below –  not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false;  these factors are used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

  • Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud.  They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

  • Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

  • There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II

 

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

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 is an overview of major advances in technology which ultimately proved 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 OF COMPUTERS AND SPREADSHEET TECHNOLOGY

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 1970s, 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).

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud. 

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous  election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gun in detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008. 

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.

2000 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%

 

2000 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

 

2000 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. He won the Tue Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters) by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.  

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

                                           2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)
Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 47.0% 1.3%

 

                   2004 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

 

2004 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.

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

 

                      2008 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

 

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
 (plausible returning 2004 voter mix)
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

 

Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted 2004 2008 impossible returning 2004 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.

2004 True Vote Model
                    (Plausible 2000 returning voter mix)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 22,381 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52,055 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47,403 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3,898 3.1% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.4%
67,362 56,666 1,709
                           Kerry share of returning Gore voters
Kerry share 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
returning Bush 2000                                              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 (000)    
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)
Kerry share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
returning Bush 2000   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%
Win Prob  (3% MoE)
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: , , , , ,