# Tag Archives: vote share

## Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2013
Updated: Jan. 22, 2017

Historical Overview and Analysis of Election Fraud

In the 1968-2012 Presidential elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote by 48.7-45.8%. The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) indicates the Democrats won the True Vote by 49.6-45.0% – a 7.5% margin discrepancy.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42%, yet won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy.

But just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were accurate in 2016.   Clinton won the Recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%. Trump led the Election Model recorded vote forecast by 44.4-42.9% which exactly matched the 306-232 EV.

The media was in the tank for Clinton, the establishment candidate. In the pre-election and exit polls, Democratic Party-ID affiliation and corresponding vote shares were inflated at the expense of Independents. The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won Independents by nearly 10%.

Probabilities of the state and national exit poll discrepancies

The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 state presidential elections from 1988-2008. The probability of the occurrence is ZERO. Only 14 (5%) would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (E-116). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000001.

I have written four books on election fraud which prove that the official recorded vote has deviated from the True Vote in every election since 1968.  Except for 2016,  the deviations have  always favored the Republicans. Voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures; they are caused by malicious programming.

The proof is in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State Exit Polls Statistical Reference. Not one political scientist, pollster, statistician, mathematician or media pundit has ever rebutted the data or the calculation itself. They have chosen not to discuss the topic. And who can blame them? Job security is everything.

Election forecasters, academics, political scientists and main stream media pundits never discuss or analyze the statistical evidence that proves election fraud is systemic – beyond a reasonable doubt. This site contains a compilation of presidential, congressional and senate election analyses based on pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and associated True Vote Models. Those who never discuss or analyze Election Fraud should focus on the factual statistical data and run the models. If anyone wants to refute the analytic evidence, they are encouraged to do so in a response. Election forecasters, academics and political scientists are welcome to peer review the content.

The bedrock of the evidence derives from this undisputed fact: National and state actual exit poll results are always adjusted in order to force a match to the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

All demographic categories are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote. To use these forced final exit polls as the basis for election research is unscientific and irresponsible. The research is based on the bogus premise that the recorded vote is sacrosanct and represents how people actually voted. Nothing can be further from the truth.

It is often stated that exit polls were very accurate in elections prior to 2004 but have deviated sharply from the recorded vote since. That is a misconception. UNADJUSTED exit polls have ALWAYS been accurate; they closely matched the True Vote Model in the 1988-2008 presidential elections. The adjusted, published exit polls have always matched the fraudulent RECORDED vote because they have been forced to. That’s why they APPEAR to have been accurate.

The Census Bureau indicates that since 1968 approximately 80 million more votes were cast than recorded. And these were just the uncounted votes. What about the votes switched on unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators? But vote miscounts are only part of the story. The True Vote analysis does not include the millions of potential voters who were illegally disenfranchised and never got to vote.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7 million recorded votes. But approximately 11 million ballots (75% Democratic) were uncounted. Dukakis won the unadjusted exit polls in 24 battleground states by 51-47% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 50-49%. The Collier brothers classic book Votescam provided evidence that the voting machines were rigged for Bush.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by 5.8 million recorded votes (43.0-37.5%). Approximately 9 million were uncounted. The National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote with an impossible 119% turnout of living 1988 Bush voters in 1992. The unadjusted state exit polls had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (47.6-31.7%). The True Vote Model indicates that he won by 51-30% with 19% voting for third party candidate Ross Perot.

In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.6 million recorded votes (49.3-40.7%); 9 million were uncounted. The unadjusted state exit polls (70,000 respondents) had Clinton winning a 16 million vote landslide (52.6-37.1%). The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6%.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated that he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin. There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. The True Vote Model had Gore by 51.5-44.7%. The Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000.

In July 2004 I began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible; it was forced to match Kerry’s 48.3% recorded vote (the unadjusted NEP indicated that Kerry had 51.7%). The adjusted poll indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 122.3 million recorded). But Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000; only 48 million were alive in 2004. Assuming a 96% turnout, 46 million voted. Therefore, simple arithmetic shows that the adjusted NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.6 (52.6-46) million. In order to match the recorded vote, there had to be an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN IS CONFIRMED BY A) KERRY’S 4 MILLION NEW VOTER MARGIN (22 MILLION NEW VOTERS, NEARLY 60% FOR KERRY), B) 4 MILLION RETURNING GORE MARGIN AND C) 2 MILLION RETURNING NADER MARGIN. KERRY WON BY 10 MILLION VOTES.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV. Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share was close to his 51.7% unadjusted National Exit Poll share. He had 53.5% in the True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

Consider the adjustments made to the 2004 National Exit Poll crosstabs to force a match to the recorded vote.

Bush had a 48% national approval rating in the final 11 pre-election polls. The Final adjusted National Exit Poll was forced to indicate that he had a 53% approval rating. He had just a 50% rating in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate. Given the 3% differential, we can assume that the 48% pre-election approval rating was also inflated by 3% and was really 45% – a virtual match to the True Vote Model. The exit pollsters had to inflate Bush’s 48% pre-election average rating by 5% in the NEP in order to match the recorded vote. There was a 0.99 correlation ratio between Bush‘s state approval and his unadjusted exit poll share.

Similarly, the unadjusted state exit poll Democratic/Republican Party ID split was 38.8-35.1%. In order to force the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote, it required a bogus 37-37% split. The correlation between state Republican Party ID and the Bush unadjusted shares was a near-perfect 0.93. This chart displays the state unadjusted Bush exit poll share, approval ratings and Party-ID.

The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share. The Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In the 2008 Primaries, Obama did significantly better than his recorded vote.

The 2008 Election Model projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. The registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The landslide was denied.

The Final 2008 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by indicating an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Given Kerry’s 5% unadjusted 2004 exit poll and 8% True Vote margin, one would expect 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a 19 million discrepancy from the Final 2008 NEP. Another anomaly: The Final 2008 NEP indicated there were 5 million returning third party voters – but only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. Either the 2008 NEP or the 2004 recorded third-party vote share (or both) was wrong. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents).

In the 2010 Midterms the statistical evidence indicates that many elections for House, Senate, and Governor, were stolen. The Wisconsin True Vote Model contains worksheets for Supreme Court and Recall elections. A serious analyst can run them and see why it is likely that they were stolen.

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model exactly forecast Obama’s 332 electoral vote based on the state pre-election polls.  Obama won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.2% (5.0 million vote margin) and once again overcame the built-in 5% fraud factor. The built-in True Vote Model projected that Obama would win by 56-42% with 391 electoral votes. But just 31 states were exit polled, therefore a comparison between the True Vote Model and the (still unreleased) state and national unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the red-shift) is not possible. Obama won the 11.7 million Late votes recorded after Election Day by 58-38%. In 2008, he won the 10.2 million late votes by 59-37%. The slight 2% margin difference is a powerful indicator that if a full set of 2012 unadjusted state and national exit polls were available, they would most likely show that Obama had 55-56% True Vote share.

In 2016 election analysts calculated that Clinton actually won by 292-246 based strictly on the unadjusted exit polls  which favored Clinton.  They focused on four states that Trump won: WI, NC, MI and PA. The analysts assumed that the exit polls were fairly conducted – just like they had been in the past. But Trump won the post election True Vote model by 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

But why only recount states that Trump narrowly won? What about states he narrowly lost: NV, MN, NM, CO, NH?

The  uadjusted polls also appear suspicious in  states where they closely matched the recorded vote:  CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s in 2012 by an implausible 7%. Illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model

US Count Votes National Election Data Archive Project
Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies

2004 True Vote Model
Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Forecast and True Vote Model
Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

2016 Election Model Forecast
Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Unadjusted 28 State Exit polls: Clinton 47.9-44.7%

## Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Five Wisconsin Elections: A Pattern of County Unit/Ward Vote Share Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 23, 2012
Updated: Aug.2, 2015

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there were repetitive patterns in the cumulative county vote shares in five recent Wisconsin elections. The patterns are obvious; the county graphs are virtual duplicates.

This post is a work-in-process, but since the data tables and graphs are completed, I wanted to make them available while the analysis is ongoing.

The following counties appear most anomalous: Brown, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Croix, Milwaukee, Oneida, Ozaukee, Racine, Richland, Sheboygan, Trempealeau, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago.

Republican vote shares are increasing (lines slope upward) while Democratic shares decrease (slope downward) at the same rate. This is an indicator of likely vote switching.

Summary of Key Walker Recall Results
Walker won the recall by 171,000 votes (53.1-46.8%).

In 15 large counties, Barrett’s vote shares at 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 54.2%, 52.1% and 48.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.51 million of the total 2.52 million recorded votes.

Milwaukee County is the largest and most anomalous. In the recall, Barrett had 63.3% of the total 396,000 votes. But he had 74.4% at the 25% mark, 70.4% at 50% and 66.5% at 75%. Looking at Barrett’s shares in terms of remaining votes, he had 59.4% of the final 75%, 55.9% of the final 50% and 53.0% of the final 25%. In other words there was a 21.4% decline in Barrett’s 74.4% vote share of the first 100,000 votes to 53.0% in the final 100,000 votes.

Barrett’s True Vote Model 54.4% share is within 0.2% of his 15 county cumulative share at the 25% mark. His total Wisconsin share (assuming an equal level of fraud in the other 57 counties) was 52.4%.

In the 15 counties, there was a 6.0% difference between Barrett’s 54.2% at the 25% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 6.1% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 52.4% Wisconsin True Vote share.

In the 15 counties, there was a 4.0% difference between Barrett’s 52.1% at the 50% mark and his final 48.1%. Adding 4.0% to Barrett’s official 46.3% total share, he had an estimated 50.3% Wisconsin True Vote share.

2008 Presidential Election
The cumulative vote analysis essentially confirmed the unadjusted exit poll. Obama won the WI recorded vote by 56.2-42.7%. He won the unadjusted exit poll 63.3-35.7%, a 7.1% increase over the recorded vote share.

In 15 of the largest counties, Obama’s vote shares at the 25%, 50% and 100% of the cumulative total were 62.4%, 60.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The counties had 1.85 million (62%) of the 2.98 million total recorded votes.

Democratic votes shares declined by an average of 6.0% from the 25% mark to the final recorded vote:

15 Wisconsin Counties
Democratic Vote Share Trend
15 Wisconsin Counties
.................... Percent of total vote

15 Counties Votes 25% 50% 100% Change
2008 Obama 1853 62.38% 60.59% 57.07% 5.31%
2010 Feingold 1375 54.70% 52.38% 48.69% 6.02%
2010 Barrett 1372 55.04% 51.86% 48.23% 6.81%
2012 Barrett 1551 54.24% 52.11% 48.14% 6.10%
2014 Burke 1511 53.96% 52.22% 48.50% 5.46%

The following spreadsheets use data provided by GAB. Note that Milwaukee County is displayed at the top of the screen in each spreadsheet to illustrate the similar cumulative vote pattern in each of the four elections.

2012 Walker recall (contains voting machine types for each county and municipality).

2010 Governor

2010 Senate

2008 Presidential

In the process of working on analysis of Wisconsin elections, I have developed a number of models and databases which are available online as Google Doc spreadsheets. They can be linked to from the following posts:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2011-wisconsin-supreme-court-recall-elections/

## The Battleground States: True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

The Battleground States: True Vote Sensitivity Analysis

Richard Charnin
Nov.6, 2012

A forecasting model that does not utilize a Sensitivity Analysis of alternative forecast assumptions is incomplete. This analysis of 10 battleground states is based on various voter turnout and vote share scenarios.

The states are: CO FL IA NC NH NV OH PA VA WI

In 2008, Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9%-45.6%.
He won the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate by 58-40.5%
The True Vote Model indicated that he won by 58.0-40.3%

In the 10 states, Obama’s…
Average 2008 recorded share: 53.3%
Average 2008 unadjusted exit poll: 57.8%

2012 True Vote Model: 54.9%
2012 Poll-based projected share: 51.6%

The following base case assumptions apply to all 10 states:
1. The number of returning voters is based on the 2008 state exit poll.
2. Voter mortality: 5% (1.25%/year)
3. Turnout: 95% of Obama 2008 voters; 97% of McCain voters.
4. Obama wins 92% of returning Obama voters and 5% of McCain.
5. Romney wins 95% of returning McCain voters and 8% of Obama.
6. Even split of new voters.

Given the above, there are two sets of sensitivity tables.
Table 1: Obama shares of returning…
Obama voters (87-97%); McCain voters (0-10%)

Table 2: 2008 turnout of…
Obama voters (92-98%); McCain voters (94-100%)

There are 9 scenario combinations in each table.
Of the total 18 scenarios, Obama won 14 in FL, 17 in OH, 15 in NC, 12 in CO, 17 in NV. He won all 18 scenarios in WI, VA, PA, IA and NH.

Example: Ohio
Table 1: Vote shares
Worst case: Obama 0% of returning McCain; 87% of returning Obama.
Base Case: Obama 5% of returning McCain; 92% of returning Obama.

Table 2: Voter turnout
Worst case: McCain 100%; Obama 92%.
Base Case: McCain 97%; Obama 95%.

The analysis indicates that Obama should do quite well in these battleground states – unless, of course, the elections are stolen.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

Posted by on November 6, 2012 in 2012 Election

## 2000-2004 Presidential Elections County True Vote Model

2000-2004 Presidential Elections County True Vote Model

Richard Charnin

March 28, 2012

The database has been restructured for easier use. It is based on county recorded vote changes and 2000 and 2004 as well as National Exit Poll vote shares. It now calculates the approximate 2004 True Vote for counties in 21 states.

The 2004 County True Vote Model:

In 2000, Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.4%. He won the National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%

In 2004, Kerry won the unadjusted state exit polls by 51.1-47.6%. He won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%%

The database contains Election Day recorded votes. In 2000 approximately 2.7 million votes were recorded after Election Day; in 2004 approximately 6 million were. Gore and Kerry each had 55% of the late two-party vote.

In 2000, there were approximately 6 million uncounted votes. In 2004, there were approximately 4 million. Gore and Kerry had 70-80%. Total Votes Cast, which includes uncounted votes, are not available by county and therefore not included in the County True Vote calculations. Therefore, the Democratic County True Vote is conservative (uncounted votes are 70-80% Democratic). Total votes cast are included in the National and State True Vote models.

The number of returning 2000 voters is calculated assuming 5% voter mortality over the four year period. The default turnout assumption is that 98% of living 2000 voters voted in 2004.

The number of new voters is calculated as the difference between the 2004 recorded vote and the number of returning 2000 voters. This is just an approximation since the recorded 2000 county vote is used – not the True Vote based on total votes cast .

The Model uses adjusted 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares as a basis for calculating total state and county vote shares. The adjusted shares are applied to each county’s estimated share of new voters and returning Gore, Bush and Other voters. The weighted average of the county vote shares should closely match the calculated state True Vote.

State and county vote shares are calculated based on the differential between the unadjusted state and national exit poll shares.

The Input sheet is for data entry. Enter the state code in cell A2.

The default assumption is that 2000 voters return to vote in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted exit poll. Enter code 1 to use the 2000 recorded vote as the returning voter option. Since the unadjusted 2000 exit poll is close to the True Vote, the default option is a better choice.

The user has the option of incrementing the returning Gore voter mix percentage. The Bush share will decrease (increase) by the same percentage.

The living 2000 voter turnout rate is set to 98%, but can be changed if desired.

In order to gauge the impact of changes in vote shares, incremental changes to Kerry’s base case vote shares can be input. Bush’s shares will adjust automatically in the opposite direction (the total must equal 100%). Other third-party vote shares are unchanged.

Analyzing the results
The data is sorted by 2004 county vote. The discrepancies are displayed as vote margin (in thousands) and a percentage. The probability of fraud increases as the discrepancy increases. The county True Vote is only an estimate. It can only be determined if the ballots are hand-counted.

The correlation statistic shows the relationship between two variables and ranges from -1 to +1, where -1 is a perfectly negative correlation and +1 is perfectly positive. A near-zero correlation indicates that there is no relationship. A positive correlation indicates that both variables move in the same direction: as one variable increases (decreases), the other also increases (decreases). A negative correlation indicates just the opposite: as one variable increases (decreases) the other decreases (increases).

The model calculates the correlation statistic (relationship) between Kerry’s recorded vote share and the True Vote discrepancy. In general, there is a strong negative correlation between the variables, indicating that as Obama’s recorded county vote share increases (decreases) the discrepancy decreases (increases). This is an indication that the GOP counties are the most fraudulent (as measured by vote share margin discrepancy).

For example, in Ohio, the -0.82 correlation was very strong indicating that Bush counties were extremely fraudulent relative to Kerry counties (based on vote share margin discrepancies).

County Correlation Ratios between the Democratic Recorded Vote and
the True Vote Share Margin Discrepancy
State 2004 2008
NC -0.01 -0.72
WI -0.70 -0.50
OH -0.82 -0.50
NY -0.62 -0.45
FL -0.43 -0.79

Florida
At 8:40pm CNN showed that of 2846 exit polled, Bush led by 49.8-49.7%.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents) by 50.8-48.0%.
But at 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (52.1-47.9%) for the SAME 2862 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote a 381,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.7-46.1%, a 500,000 vote margin.

Kerry’s largest discrepancies from the True Vote were in DRE counties:
Broward, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Dade, Pinellas.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Margin: Broward Palm Beach Volusia Polk

Ohio
At 7:30pm CNN showed that of 1963 exit polled, Kerry led by 52.1-47.9%
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2020 respondents) by 54.1-45.9%.
At 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (50.9-48.6%) for the SAME 2020 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote, a 119,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the True Vote by 53.1-45.5%, a 426,000 vote margin.

Ohio used Punched card machines, DREs and Optical Scanners.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Margin: Butler Warren Clermont

New York
All counties Lever machines.
Kerry won the recorded vote by 58.4-40.1%, a 1,251,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 62.1-36.2%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 63.0-35.1%, a 2,060,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Margin: Nassau Suffolk Staten Island Rockand

Wisconsin
Kerry won the recorded vote by 49.7-49.3%, an 11,000 vote margin.
Kerry won the Exit Poll by 52.0-46.8%.
Kerry won the True Vote by 52.8-45.6%, a 217,000 vote margin.
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Margin: Waukesha Brown Sheboygan Washington

Arizona
In 2000 Gore won the exit poll (47.2-46.4%) but lost the vote by 50.9-44.7%.
In 2004, Bush won the exit poll (52.8-46.3%) and the recorded vote (54.9-44.4%).

But Kerry won the True Vote by 52.0-46.2% (assuming 2000 voters returned in proportion to the 2000 exit poll). If the model is correct, there was massive election fraud (a 16% discrepancy).

Pennsylvania
Most fraudulent counties based on…
Margin: Northampton York Westmoreland

## The 2000-2004 Presidential County Recorded Vote Database

Richard Charnin
March 1, 2012
Updated: Oct.27, 2015

The 2000-2004 Presidential County Recorded Vote Database

The 2000-2004 Presidential County Vote Database is a forensic spreadsheet tool for viewing, filtering, sorting and comparing county vote changes from 2000 to 2004. It is important to note that the database contains Election Day recorded votes. The state True Vote is calculated as well. The 2004 county voting machine type is indicated.

The database consists of two worksheets:

Filtering and sorting the database:
1. Click the arrow in cell A13
2. Click the Clear button
3. Enter the state code to filter the 2000-2004 county votes.
4. Click OK
5. Sort Option (optional):
Sort any column by clicking the arrow in row 13 of the column.
Choose A-Z for low to high or Z-A for high to low.
Examples: Filter for a state, then sort by county vote, vote share, machine type, etc.

In 2000 Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000. But there were nearly 6 million uncounted votes. Gore won the unadjusted exit poll by 50-44% – a six million vote margin that was close to the True Vote Model.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. There were nearly 4 million uncounted votes. Kerry  won the unadjusted exit poll by 51-47.5%. The True Vote model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

Why bother to analyze state and county recorded votes? What if a county had a near-zero percentage increase in Bush’s 2004 margin from 2000? In other words, if there was nearly equal fraud in both elections, how would we know? If we have evidence of 2004 fraud in a given county, but there was no change in margin from 2000, then we can hypothesize that fraud also occurred in 2000. Conversely, if there was a change in margin in 2004, we could hypothesize that there was an increase in the fraud factor. Since Election Fraud is systemic, the 2000/2004 county vote database has applicability in other state and presidential elections.

New York

New York had the highest level of fraud; there was a 55% average difference between comparable Kerry and Bush correlations. Florida was next at 49%, Ohio had 35%. Oregon, the only vote-by-mail 100% paper ballot state with mandated random county hand-recounts, had just a 4% difference. The results confirmed a prior analysis which indicated a) that Oregon stood alone as the only fraud-free Battleground state and b) confirmed that election fraud caused the large exit poll discrepancies in New York, Florida and Ohio- and many other states.

Bush’s 2004 recorded NY county vote gain over 2000 is indeed an Urban Legend. His percentage gain in the 15 largest NY urban and suburban (Democratic) counties far exceeded those of Kerry. In 2000, Gore won the NY recorded vote by 60-35% with 5% to third parties. But Kerry won by just 58-40%, a 7% decrease in margin. NY voted exclusively on Lever machines which had the highest discrepancies (11%) of all voting machine types.

In 2004, Nader had less than 0.5% of the vote nationally. Since returning Nader voters preferred Kerry over Bush by 64-17%, Kerry should have won NY by 63-36% (assuming zero net defections of returning voters). In fact, he won the unadjusted exit poll by 62.1-36.2%. But his recorded margin exceeded Gore in just 6 of 62 counties.

Columbia was the ONLY COUNTY where Bush had fewer votes than he did in 2000 – an indication of zero fraud. Bush had 12,100 votes in 2000 and 11,200 in 2004.
This graph shows Bush and Kerry percentage gains over 2000 in the 15 largest NY counties.http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

The Bush Urban Legend is also illustrated in this graph which shows the implausible high (0,61) correlation between NY county population size and Bush percentage gain from 2000.http://richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_14517_image001.gif

Florida

Gore won the FL unadjusted exit poll by a whopping 53.4-43.6% (3% to Nader et al), but Bush won by 537 votes. They were tied at 48.8% – only because the Supreme Court stopped the recount. There were nearly 200,000 uncounted spoiled ballots, a combination of undervotes, overvotes, Butterfly ballots, etc.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Kerry led the 2004 pre-election polls.
http://richardcharnin.com/FL04exitpoll_12679_image001.png

In 2004 Bush won again, this time by 52.1-47.9%. Returning Nader 2000 voters broke by nearly 4-1 for Kerry, who also won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-48.0%. So how did Bush do it? Well, for one thing FL voting machines were now a mix of unverifiable DREs and Optical scanners. No more punch cards. No more hanging chads. HAVA fixed that problem, so that votes could be stolen cleanly in Cyberspace. No longer would there be blood evidence at the crime scene.

The biggest Democratic counties (Palm Beach, Broward and Dade) showed  virtually no change in Bush’s margin from 2000 to 2004. But changes in county recorded votes can be misleading. Does no change mean that there was no fraud? Obviously not. Election Fraud in both 2000 and 2004 caused Gore and Kerry margins to decline at nearly the same rate. The near-zero net change in margin masks the uniform vote thefts. But the the level of fraud must have increased in counties where Bush gained the most over his 2000 vote (Brevard, Polk, Hillsborough, etc.). Margins increased by 4% in Hillsborough, 7% in Broward and 6% in Palm Beach. These counties used DRE touchscreens in 2004.

Of the 67 Florida counties, Kerry did better than Gore in just five, whereas Bush increased his margin in 62. But in Leon County there was a 10,000 increase in Kerry’s margin, his biggest county gain. Does the fact that Ion Sancho, the Election Integrity activist whose famous “Hursti Hack” demonstrated that Optical Scanners can be rigged and also happens to be the Leon County Election Supervisor, have anything to do with it?

Oregon

This 100% paper ballot state uses Optical scanners. Vote is by mail or hand-delivery of ballots to a polling site. A hand recount of ballots is mandated for randomly selected counties. Not surprisingly, with the combination of mandated hand counts (a fraud deterrent) and high turnout, Oregon was the only Battleground state that Kerry won by a margin better than Gore.

Gore won Multnomah, Oregon’s largest county, by 104,000 votes (64.3-28.6%). But Kerry did even better. He won it by 152,000 votes (72.5-27.5%) and apparently picked up a large number of returning Nader 2000 voters. It’s very telling to compare Kerry’s expected gains in urban Multnomah to Bush’s impossible, unexpected gains in heavily Democratic NY counties.

Oregon is a 100% paper ballot state, mandates random hand recounts and enjoys heavy voter turnout. Do these factors have anything to do with Oregon being the only Battleground state in which Kerry’s winning vote share exceeded that of Al Gore?

Ohio

In 2000, Bush beat Gore by 50.0-46.5%, but the exit poll was close (48.5-47.4%). In 2004, Kerry won the exit poll by a solid 54.1-45.7% but lost the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% – quite a red-shift. Although there were many Battleground states and strong Democratic states in which vote miscounts favored Bush, Ohio was the epicenter of election fraud. The majority of its 88 counties voted on punch card machines, the rest on DREs and Optical scanners.

In 2000, Gore won Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) by 63-34%. Kerry did even better; he won by 67-33%. Kerry had a 61,000 net gain in margin. But keeping in mind that these are recorded vote shares. Based on the vast evidence of documented fraud, Gore and Kerry must have done much better than their recorded votes indicate. Bush vote gains from 2000 were highest in Butler, Warren and Clermont counties. All had numerous voting irregularities and anomalies.

Did Ken Blackwell, Secretary of State and co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign, have anything to do with Kerry losing Ohio ?

Posted by on March 1, 2012 in 2000 Election, 2004 Election

## A True Vote Probability Analysis of a Kerry win in Ohio and Florida

A True Vote Probability Analysis of a Kerry win in Ohio and Florida

Richard Charnin
Jan. 8, 2012

The True Vote Model (TVM) calculates vote shares and margins based on estimated returning voter mix and National Exit Poll vote shares. Popular vote win probabilities are also displayed for various vote share scenarios (“sensitivity analysis”). The analysis shows that Kerry won all plausible vote share scenarios in Ohio and Florida.

Four methods are used to estimate voter turnout based on prior election 1-recorded vote, 2-votes cast, 3-Exit Poll, 4-True Vote and an estimated turnout rate.

New voters = total votes cast in the current election – returning voters

The TVM produces sensitivity analysis (5×5 tables) of vote shares, margins and popular vote win probabilities for a range of returning and new voters. The most likely scenario is in the central cell of the table, the worst case is in the lower left cell, the best case is in the upper right cell. The win probability is a function of the 2-party vote shares and is calculated using the Normal Distribution Function.

For example, assume a 51-49% vote share split and a 3.0% input margin of error. The probability of winning a majority is given by the formula:
Win Prob = NORMDIST (.51, .50, .03/1.96, true) = 74.3%

Ohio
At 7:30pm, Kerry was leading the Ohio exit poll by 52.1-47.9% (1963 respondents). He won the unadjusted exit poll (2020 respondents) by 54.1-45.9%.
At 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (50.9-48.6%) for the SAME 2020 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote. Bush won the recorded vote 50.8-48.7%, a 119,000 vote margin.

Kerry’s Ohio win probability:
Assume 2000 election voters return in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted Ohio exit poll won by Bush (48.5-47.4%).

In the Worst Case scenario, Kerry captures 55.7% of new voters and 9.7% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He wins with 52.2%, a 313,000 vote margin and 97.1% win probability.

In the most likely Base Case scenario, Kerry captures 59.5% of new voters and 11.7% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He wins with a 53.7% share, a 480,000 vote margin and a 99.8% win probability.

Florida 2004

At 8:40pm CNN showed a virtual tie. Of 2846 exit polled, Bush led by 49.8-49.7%.
Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll (2862 respondents) by 50.8-48.0%. But at 1:41am, the poll flipped to Bush (52.1-47.9%) for the SAME 2862 RESPONDENTS, matching the recorded vote. Bush won by a 381,000 recorded vote margin.

Kerry’s Florida win probability:
Once again, assume that 2000 election voters return in proportion to the 2000 unadjusted Florida exit poll which Gore won by 53.4-43.6%.

In the Worst Case scenario, Kerry captures 52.2% of new voters and 7.5% of returning Bush 2000 voters. Kerry has 53.2% and wins by 569,000 votes with a 99.5% win probability.

In the Base Case scenario, Kerry captures 56.2% of new voters and 9.5% of returning Bush 2000 voters. He has 54.8%, an 800,000 vote margin and 100% win probability.

Note:
Ron Baiman and Kathy Dopp at US Count Votes did a statistical analysis of 49 Ohio 2004 exit poll precincts.

http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/OH/2004Election/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

The authors write:
Over 40% of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had statistically significant discrepancies. This is over four times the number of expected precincts with significant discrepancy.
• 45.1% (22 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculations assume that official vote counts most accurately estimate actual vote share, and
• 40.7% (20 of 49) of Ohio’s polled precincts have significant discrepancy when calculated by assuming that exit poll results are a better estimate of real vote share.

Ohio’s significant exit poll discrepancies overwhelmingly over-estimated Kerry’s official vote share:
• Over 35% of precincts had official Kerry vote counts and exit poll share that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In other words, Kerry official vote share was much smaller than expected given Kerry exit poll share in these precincts, and
• 4% (2) of Ohio’s exit polled precincts had official Bush official vote that had less than a 5% chance of occurring. In these precincts Bush official vote share (assumed to be one minus their Kerry share) was much smaller than expected, given Bush’s exit poll share.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean)
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded: 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

Posted by on January 8, 2012 in 2004 Election

## 2000-2008 Late Vote Anomalies

2000-2008 Late Vote Anomalies

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Updated: Dec. 24, 2011

This analysis has been updated to include the 2008 unadjusted state exit polls.

The unadjusted exit poll data source is the Roper site:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/state_exitpolls.html#.Tr60gD3NltP

In the last 3 elections, the average Democratic late vote share was 7% higher than the vote share recorded on Election Day.

On Election Day 2000, 102.6 million votes were recorded; Gore led by 48.3-48.1% (50.1% of the 2-party vote). Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late 2-party votes, an 11.0% increase in margin. There were 6 million uncounted votes.

On Election Day 2004, 116.7 million votes were recorded; Bush led by 51.2-48.3%. Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes, a 10.4% increase in margin. There were 4 million uncounted votes.

On Election Day 2008, 121.21 million were recorded. Obama led by 63.4-56.1m (52.3-46.3%). There were 10.16m late votes recorded after Election Day. Obama won these late votes by 59.2-37.5%, a 7% increase in his Election Day share and 15% increase in margin. The final recorded vote total was 131.4 million. Obama won by 69.5-59.9m (52.87-45.62%).

It is logical to assume that the late votes were accurate because
1) They were cast using paper ballots, not on unverifiable DREs
2) Since the winner was known on Election Day, there was nothing to gain by manipulating late votes recorded after Election Day.

The unadjusted exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were far beyond the 1.2% exit poll margin of error. But the state exit polls were generally very close to the late recorded vote shares. The largest percentage deviations were in states with a relatively small number of late votes – as to be expected. Assuming that the late votes were fairly representative of the total state electorate, then the late votes can be viewed as super exit polls with thousands more respondents than corresponding state exit polls in which 1000-2500 voters are interviewed.

2008: The Final 10 million late recorded votes

Obama won the state unadjusted exit poll aggregate by 58.0-40.5% – a close match to his 59.2% late recorded share. There were 83,000 exit poll respondents. The National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents) is a subset of the state exit polls. Obama won the unadjusted NEP by a 61-37% margin and had a 58.0% share in the True Vote Model.

Obama’s late vote closely matched the unadjusted exit poll in the following states. He had…
64.5% of New Jersey’s 224,000 late recorded votes and 63.8% in the unadjusted exit poll.
67.9% of Maryland’s 277,000 late votes and 67.2% in the exit poll.
70.7% of New York’s 584,000 late votes and 71.5% in the exit poll.
54.6% of Ohio’s 500,000 late votes and 56.3% in the exit poll.
51.6% of Florida’s 405,000 late votes and 52.1% in the exit poll.

68.9% of Illinois’ 183,000 late votes and 66.3% in the exit poll.
47.5% of Mississippi’s 77,000 late votes and 48.4% in the exit poll.
49.7% of Tennessee’s 19,000 late votes and 47.7% in the exit poll.
49.1% of South Carolina’s 117,000 late votes and 47.6% in the exit poll.
46.2% of Kansas’ 32,000 late votes and 46.1% in the exit poll.

2004: The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes

There was a 12% difference in margin between the initial 116.2 million 2-party recorded vote (Bush 51.5-Kerry 48.5%) and the final 4.8m (Kerry 54.3-Bush 45.7%). This resulted in a 0.5m decline in the official Bush margin (3.5 to 3.0m). This red flag indicates that since the election was decided at the 116m mark, election fraud was no longer necessary. Late votes (absentees, etc.) became irrelevant when Bush was declared the winner. The media reported that Bush won by 3.5m votes; they still quote that initial margin today. Edison-Mitofsky matched the Final Exit Poll to the initial 117m recorded votes.

Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 51.1-47.6% (76,000 respondents). He won the National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.9%.

Assuming that Kerry’s 53.0% share of the 5.0m late votes is representative of the 122.3m recorded total, his vote total is 64.8m. Adding his 75% share of the 3.4m documented uncounted votes brings his final total to 67.4m (53.5%). This is quite close to the True Vote Model which determined that he won by 53.6-45.1%. The model accounted for total votes cast in 2000 (recorded plus uncounted) , assuming 5% voter mortality and a 98% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004. The 12:22am Composite NEP vote shares were used in the calculation.

There was a 0.72 correlation between the late state vote shares and the exit polls. For states which had more than 40k late votes, the correlation statistic was a much stronger 0.93, as one would expect.

This is further evidence that the “pristine” exit polls were close to the True Vote, namely:
1) the high correlation between state exit polls and late vote shares
2) the small discrepancies between the exit polls and the late vote shares
3) the consistent pattern of a higher Kerry share of late votes compared to initial recorded votes

How does one explain the discrepancies between the initial and late recorded state vote shares? Kerry’s late vote share exceeded his initial share in 38 states (15 of 19 battleground states). Corresponding vote discrepancies were significant in the East but near zero in the Far West, strongly suggesting election fraud in early-reporting, vote-rich battleground states. A false impression was created that Bush was winning the popular vote while the state and national exit polls indicated that Kerry was winning big. In the Far Western states there was virtually no difference between the 15.6m initial and 3.3m late recorded vote shares; Kerry was a steady 53% winner. But the Far West average exit poll WPE was 6.4%, indicating a 56% Kerry share. Was vote-padding still in effect?

Not a single media pundit has ever noted the following:
1) Final state exit polls and a mathematically impossible National Exit poll were adjusted to match the recorded vote.
2) Unadjusted “pristine” state exit polls were close to the True Vote.
3) Final 5 million recorded votes were close to the True Vote.

1 Comment

Posted by on December 24, 2011 in Uncategorized