Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin

4/13/2016

Bernie Sanders is leading 50.4-49.6% based on the unweighted average of all 34 caucuses and primaries. Let’s accept the reasonable premise that the primaries have been fraudulent and Sanders won in MO, MA, AZ, OH,IL, IA, and NV. Electoral votes are directly proportional to state voting population. Clinton has won 11 RED states with 160 EV. Sanders won the other 23 states with 188 EV

Based on late exit polls (which had yet to be adjusted to match the recorded vote), Sanders is leading by an unweighted 52.4-47.0%. The lead must be even greater since votes were stolen from Bernie in the RED states. Proof? Check the average 8.7% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded votes in the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

**Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 17 of N= 18 primaries. The probability P=0.000072 or 1 in 13,797. The spreadsheet function is P= 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true). There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was not due to chance and must have been the result of election fraud.**

**Bernie was a 56-44% winner in the caucus, yet Hillary won 11 of 18 delegates!** In 12 counties, 54% of Clinton’s votes were surrogates (mail-in), representing 74% of the delegates. Just 27% of Sander’s votes were surrogates. Contrast this to the Nebraska caucus, where 20% of Clinton’s votes were mail-in.

From CNN: *“A Clinton campaign aide said their ‘secret sauce’ in Wyoming was the state’s onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms.”* ** But there is no evidence of such a rule. The aide was not named.**

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely did even better. At 4pm, the exit poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of white vote. Whites comprise 88% of WI voters.** Assuming Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party). **

The final adjusted exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicates that whites comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks comprised 10% – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not plausible. A pre-election poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) indicated that Sanders was winning black voters by 51-40%.

The exit poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). **According to the pollsters, the vote shares are NA.** How is that? Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Without this information, we cannot calculate the total recorded vote shares. The abbreviated totals have Sanders winning by 52.1-40.1%. The 12% margin is close to the official recorded margin.

Arizona is the latest poster child of election fraud, along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Sanders won Utah (a bordering state) and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?

**The National Exit Pool (NEP) of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ. It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious.** But the networks called it for Hillary with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll? Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won the county by 54-43%- an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes much further than this one poll.

Of the 15 Arizona counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson) is second with 16%. In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was 54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. **In 2016, 13 counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008. The 4.1% decline (17,000 votes) in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.8% to 56.0%.**

Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% turnout. It is a powerful indicator of voter suppression.** The probability of the 12.9% difference (160,000 votes) between Maricopa’s projected 62.1% voter turnout and the actual 50.2% turnout is approximately 1 in 90 trillion.**

The probability of the 5.8% difference in voter turnout between 14 AZ counties (56.0%) and Maricopa (50.2%) is approximately 1 in 13,000).

In the five unadjusted exit polls there were 7,220 respondents. Clinton led by 53.2-44.7%. In the final adjusted polls , there were 7979 respondents (759 additional). She led the final adjusted polls (which were matched to the recorded vote) by 55.6-42.4%. **Clinton had 586 (77.2%) of the FINAL 759 respondents, or 21.9% above her unadjusted share. Sanders had 20% (24.7% below his unadjusted share).**

Sanders did much better than his recorded vote in the Michigan primary. Sanders had 590,386 votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%). **Sanders won in 73 of 83 MI counties with 56% of the vote. He won the preliminary exit poll by 52.1-45.9%, a 97% win probability.** Clinton won urban counties Wayne and Oakland with approximately 55% of the vote.

**Once again, we have multiple confirmation indicating fraud: Cumulative vote shares, preliminary exit poll, absentee vote anomalies and other anecdotal information.**

**Cumulative Vote Shares are a likely indicator of fraud.** The lines should be nearly parallel, but invariably, vote shares rise for establishment candidates in urban Democratic counties. It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor.

In the CVS analysis, Sanders had approximately 56% at the 600,000 mark. Notice the abrupt change to straight lines at the 600,000 vote mark. They represent the largest counties (Wayne and Oakland) which used ES&S optical scanners exclusively.

Sanders had 54% of approximately 500,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia voting machines. Clinton had 75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes and 51.2% of approximately 700,000 votes cast on ES&S Mod 100 machines. The percentages are highly suspect.

**Sanders’ county vote shares were negatively correlated to machine types. The ES&S Model 100 correlation was -0.68. The bigger the county the lower Sanders’ vote share. **Wayne and Oakland counties used ES&S Model 100 optical scanners. Macomb used both ES&S and Premier/Diebold/Dominion AccuVote optical scanners.

Late changes to the exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen. ** Sanders **** led the Unadjusted Exit Poll Gender crosstab**** (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7% a 97% win probability.**. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm.

**But as always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote. Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%, a near-exact match to the RECORDED vote margin. But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain 114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?**

**Clinton won by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Sanders won 68 hand-counted precincts by 58-41% (32,360 votes, 2.7% of votes cast). He won 250 of 351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110. **

**There is a 97% probability that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error****.** The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability.

**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**