RSS

Tag Archives: vote flipping

2016 Election: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Updated Sept. 19, 2017

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

Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.8 million. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote due to election fraud.

There is evidence that millions of illegals probably voted in 2016. View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast, least one million Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via Crosscheckwhich eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls. He claims that 7 million minority voters were disenfranchised.

There is evidence that  George Soros , a Clinton backer,  controls voting machines in 16 states.  Election analyst Bev Harris has posted Fraction Magic , an algorithm used to flip votes on Central tabulators.

Sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of assumptions on the vote count.

Let TV = True Vote; RV = Recorded vote
RV = TV + Fraud

Given the Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6

Election fraud components:
-Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
-Illegal voters (non-citizens)
-Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
Uncounted- 7 million: 85% for Clinton
Vote Flip- 5 million (net): 8% of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Illegals- 2 million: 85% for Clinton
Trump wins by 3.7 million: 68.7-64.9 (48.6-46.0%)

Assume 12 million uncounted: 85% to Clinton 
(2 million illegal, 5 million flip)
Trump still wins: 69.4-69.2 million (47.48-47.32%)

………..Total………Clinton….Trump……Other
Vote…..136.2……..65.7………62.9………7.6
Pct……,,100%..,….48.3%…..46.2%……5.6%

Illegal… 2.0…….  -1.70…..  -0.30…………0 non-citizens
Unctd…..7.0………5.95……..1.05…………0 disenfranchised 
Flip……..5.0…….  -5.0……….5.0………….0 voting machine

Net……141.2……64.9…….68.7………7.6
Adjusted………..46.0%….48.6%……5.4%

Sensitivity Analysis (assume 7 million uncounted, 85% for Clinton)
Worst case (7% flip, 80% of illegals to Clinton):  Trump wins by 2.3 million
Base case: (8%  flip, 85% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 3.7 million
Best case: (9% flip, 90% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 5.2 million

View the spreadsheet:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/millennials-make-up-almost-half-of-latino-eligible-voters-in-2016/ph_election-2016_chap1-chart-08/

Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.2 million 65.7 62.9 7.6
48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal 2.0 -1.7 -0.3 0
Uncounted 7.0 5.95 1.05 0
Vote Flip 5.0 -5.0 5.0 0
Adjusted 141.22 64.9 68.7 7.6
  46.0% 48.6% 5.4%
7.0 million uncounted 85% to Clinton
Illegals to 
Clinton
 
  80% 85% 90%
Flip to Clinton   Trump Vote
9% 69.20 69.30 69.40
8% 68.57 68.67 68.77
7% 67.94 68.04 68.14
Vote Flip   Trump Vote
9% 49.00% 49.07% 49.14%
8% 48.56% 48.63% 48.70%
7% 48.11% 48.18% 48.25%
Vote Flip   Clinton vote
9% 45.61% 45.54% 45.47%
8% 46.06% 45.98% 45.91%
7% 46.50% 46.43% 46.36%
Vote Flip   Trump margin
9% 4.79 4.99 5.19
8% 3.53 3.73 3.93
7% 2.27 2.47 2.67
Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2016
Updated: July 4

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

Democratic Primaries spread sheet
TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries
LINKS TO  POSTS

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

In California on Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.

Sanders leads in votes counted since Election Day by 52.3-47.7% . These include mail-ins, crossover ballots, provisional ballots and others. The votes have been individually verified. That is a whopping 17.4% discrepancy in margin from Election Day.

It appears that nearly 15% of Sanders’ votes were flipped to Clinton on maliciously-coded voting machines and central tabulators. View the CA Update spreadsheet.

In addition, thousands of ballots may have been illegally shredded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNsnsWZn0Ws

Poll workers claim that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote using provisional ballots.  There were two reasons for this:

1- Previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls.  

2- Some were marked as vote by mail voters – but they had received no ballot in the mail.  Virtually all who were not  allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.

Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the vote count.  The contrast indicates vote-flipping.  

If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California.  The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.  

EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL – A 23% DISCREPANCY

Election Justice USA is a voter advocacy non-profit organization which demands a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.  It asserts that the Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. In Los Angeles area polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton  lead over Bernie Sanders was less than 10 percent. 

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

Provisional Ballots

Acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast exposed the fraud in Florida in 2000. In How California is being stolen from Sanders right now he wrote“As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”

Simple California Vote Share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

Sanders’ Vote share change from Election Day

CALIFORNIA Election Day Current Difference
 Average  43.63% 46.56%  2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA 40.2% 42.5% 2.3%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT 68.7% 68.7% 0.0%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA 60.2% 61.2% 1.0%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER 42.5% 42.5% 0.0%
PLUMAS 55.0% 55.0% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE 39.4% 42.9% 3.4%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BENARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO 44.5% 48.0% 3.5%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA 49.4% 51.1% 1.7%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ 55.6% 57.7% 2.1%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER 44.4% 46.5% 2.1%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE 40.7% 44.6% 3.8%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
112 Comments

Posted by on June 24, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis