RSS

Tag Archives: Voter Registration

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout

Richard Charnin
Jan.8, 2016
Updated: Jan.19, 2016

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

This summary analysis indicates fraud in the 2014 Governor elections, based on registration  and voter turnout statistics in the Voter Turnout Model (VTM). Sensitivity analysis of voter registration and turnout provides further confirmation of the Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) and True Vote Model (TVM). 

Six elections  were analyzed using CVS (based on county precinct voting) and TVM (based on returning 2012 election voters).  Note the near-perfect confirmation in the Democratic vote in all three models.

Recorded Vote

Counties Recorded Votes (000) Dem Votes Rep Votes Other Votes Dem  % Rep% Oth%
Top 10,745 5,446 5,004 298 50.7 46.6 2.8
Other 5,981 2,398 3,366 212 40.1 56.3 3.5
Total 16,727 7,844 8,370 510 46.9 50.0 3.0
KY 974 426 511 35 43.8 52.5 3.7
IL 3,626 1,681 1,823 121 46.4 50.3 3.4
FL 5,889 2,801 2,865 223 47.6 48.6 3.8
WI 2,382 1,112 1,242 27 46.7 52.2 1.1
MD 1,733 818 884 29 47.2 51.0 1.7
MA 2,120 1,004 1,044 71 47.4 49.3 3.4

Three Models

Dem TVM CVS VTM DemReg RepReg
Total 52.3% 52.0% 52.0% 45.4% 31.1%
KY 48.8% 49.5% 49.3% 53.4% 38.8%
IL 54.2% 54.4% 50.3% 47.0% 35.0%
FL 49.7% 51.1% 49.8% 38.8% 35.0%
WI 51.6% 50.2% 50.5% 43.0% 41.0%
MD 56.4% 52.9% 56.2% 54.9% 25.7%
MA 55.6% 56.0% 55.7% 35.3% 10.9%

Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS)

Democratic vote shares declined 5.1%  from the 10% CVS mark to the recorded vote. The Democrats did much better in the TOP counties (58.4%) which comprised 72% of the vote than in the smaller counties (40.4%).  The  7.7% decline in the Top counties is a red flag indicating fraud, unlike the 0.3% decline in the other small counties.

 Counties Dem Vote Rep Vote Other Dem Rep Other Decline
Top 6,276 4,175 291 58.4% 38.9% 2.7% -7.7%
Other 2,415 3,354 212 40.4% 56.1% 3.5% -0.3%
Total 8,692 7,530 503 52.0% 45% 3.0% -5.1%
KY 482 452 40 49.5% 46.4% 4.2% -5.3%
IL 1,969 1,544 113 54.4% 42.5% 3.1% -7.9%
FL 3,008 2,659 222 51.1% 45.1% 3.8% -3.5%
WI 1,194 1,159 25 50.2% 48.7% 1.1% -3.5%
MD 903 777 29 52.9% 45.4% 1.7% -5.7%
MA 1,187 861 71 56.0% 40.6% 3.4% -8.6%

Registered Voter Turnout (VTM) and Exit Poll Party-ID

Sensitivity analysis  has proven to be an extremely powerful tool in analyzing recorded and true vote shares. It is included in the TVM to calculate the effect on total vote shares using a plausible prior election returning voter mix. In the VTM analysis, we consider the mix  (or “split”) of registered voters as the true basis for the turnout rates and range of vote share assumptions  used to derive estimated  vote shares. Independents are an important factor as they comprise 25% of the national electorate.

The analysis is analogous to the Exit Poll Party-ID ,  but the party registration mix varies from Party-ID. It has been proven (and pollsters admit), that ALL exit polls are forced to conform to the recorded vote by adjusting the category weighting mix and/or the corresponding vote shares.  The 2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID  was adjusted from the voter registration mix  (40.5D- 35.3R- 24.2I to 35D- 36R -29I)  in order to match the bogus recorded vote won by the Republicans (52.5-46.2%).

Democratic  and Republican candidates usually win at least 90% of party voters and 7-10% of the other party. This analysis shows that the Republican share of Democratic voters required to match the recorded vote was significantly higher than 10%.

The simplest measure of  political party strength is in the voter registration statistics from the  Secretary of State or the Boards of Elections. In 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allowed registered voters to indicate  party preference when registering to vote.

Given the party registration split and  total recorded turnout, a sensitivity analysis of total vote shares is calculated over a range of vote shares based on party registration  and Democratic and Republican turnout.

Although there is no evidence to support  the media’s claim that  registered Republicans turnout at a higher rate than Democrats,  it is assumed in the VTM to counter the myth that Democrats lose because of low turnout.  On the contrary, in the 2004 and 2008 elections, heavy turnout was due to  millions of new and highly motivated Democrats but  votes were flipped or not counted, giving the illusion of lower Democratic turnout.

2014 National Voter Registration Split

Registration Split Democrat Republican Independent
Democrat 40.5% 92% 7% 1%
Republican 35.3% 5% 94% 1%
Independent 24.2% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 49.2% 49.1% 1.7%

2014 National Exit Poll Party-ID Split

Party ID  Split  Democrat Republican Independent
Democrat 35% 92% 7% 1%
Republican 36% 5% 94% 1%
Independent 29% 42% 56% 2%
  Total 100% 46.2% 52.5% 1.3%

Click the state links for the True Vote Model and Sensitivity Analysis tables. 

Florida

Scott (R) won the recorded vote by  48.2-47.1%.   Crist won the VTM by 49.8-46.0%,  confirming the CVS (51.1-45.1%) and TVM (49.7-45.6%).  Registered 68.4% voter turnout was assumed 66% Democratic, 71% Republican and 68.4% Independent.

The only difference between the FL Gov Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote) and the VTM is the Party-ID (31D-35R-34I) and Voter Registration 38.8D-35R-26.2I).

VTM (votes in thousands)

 FL Split Reg Turnout Votes Crist Scott Other
Dem 38.8% 3,372 66.0% 2,226 91% 6% 3%
Rep 35.0% 3,042 71.0% 2,159 10% 88% 2%
Ind 26.2% 2,277 68.4% 1,557 46% 45% 9%
Total 100.0% 8,691 68.4% 5941 49.8% 46.0% 4.2%

Sensitivity Analysis

Democrat Turnout    
% Dem 60.4% 62.4% 64.4% 66.4% 68.4%
 Crist Share
93.0% 47.5% 48.6% 49.7% 50.7% 51.8%
91.0% 46.9% 47.9% 48.9% 50.0% 51.0%
89.0% 46.2% 47.2% 48.2% 49.2% 50.2%
Margin (000)
93.0% -12 113 239 364 490
91.0% -94 29 152 275 397
89.0% -175 -55 65 185 305

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.1% …. 48.2% …. 4.7%

Illinois

 IL Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Quinn Rauner  Grimm
Dem 47.0% 2,687 60.0% 1,612 91% 7% 2%
Rep 35.0% 2,001 68.0% 1,361 7% 91% 2%
Ind 18.0% 1,029 63.4% 653 40% 53% 7%
Total 100% 5.717 63.4% 3626 50.3% 46.8% 2.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4% …. 50.3% …. 3.4%

Wisconsin

 WI Split Reg Turnout Votes Burke Walker Other
Dem 43.0% 1,292 77.0% 995 95% 4% 1%
Rep 41.0% 1,232 81.6% 1,006 7% 92% 1%
Ind 16.0% 481 79.3% 381 49% 49% 2%
Total 100.0% 3,005 79.3% 2382 50.5% 48.4% 1.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.7% …. 52.2% …. 1.1%

Kentucky

 KY Split Voters Turnout Votes Conway Bevin Curtis
Dem 53.4% 1,227 40.0% 491 88% 9% 3%
Rep 38.8% 892 45.7% 407 4% 92% 4%
Ind 7.8% 179 42.4% 76 42% 51% 7%
 Total  100.0% 2,298 42.4% 974 49.3% 47.0% 3.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.8% …. 52.5% …. 3.7%

Massachusetts

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Coakley Baker Other
Dem 35.3% 1,147 60.0% 688 91% 5% 4%
Rep 10.9% 354 86.0% 304 9% 87% 4%
Ind 53.8% 1,749 66.1% 1,156 47% 47% 6%
Total 100% 3,250 66.1% 2149 55.7% 39.4% 4.9%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.6% …. 48.5% …. 4.9%

Maryland

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Brown Hogan Other
Dem 54.9% 1,644 54.0% 888 89% 9% 2%
Rep 25.7% 770 66.1% 509 5% 94% 1%
Other 19.4% 581 57.9% 336 47% 51% 2%
Total 100% 2.995 57.9% 1,733 56.2% 42.1% 1.7%

Recorded …………………………………………. 47.2% …. 51.0% …. 1.8%

Ohio

Regist. Split Regist. voters Turnout Votes (000) Fitz -gerald Kasich Other
Dem 41.0% 2,319 50.0% 1,160 72% 24% 4%
Rep 42.0% 2,376 56.3% 1,339 4% 95% 1%
Ind 17.0% 962 53.2% 512 36% 57% 7%
Total 100% 5,657 53.2% 3010 35.6% 61.0 3.4%

Recorded …………………………………………. 32.9% …. 63.9% …. 3.3%

Kansas

Regist.  Split Regist.  voters Turnout Votes (000) Davis Brown-back Other
Dem 24.3% 329 62.7% 206 94% 5% 1%
Rep 44.1% 597 62.7% 324 19% 79% 2%
Ind 31.6% 428 62.7% 268 56% 35% 9%
Total 100% 1,353 62.7% 849 48.9% 47.1% 4.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Michigan

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Scha- uer Snyder Other
Dem 44.0% 2,270 59.0% 1,339 90% 8% 2%
Rep 37.0% 1,909 63.0% 1,203 7% 91% 2%
Ind 19.0% 980 60.8% 596 49% 48% 3%
Total 100% 5,159 60.8% 3,138 50.4 47.4% 2.2%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.1% …. 49.9% …. 4.0%

Georgia

Reg Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes (000) Carter Deal Other
Dem 39.0% 1,679 58.0% 974 94% 4% 2%
Rep 43.0% 1,852 59.8% 1,108 5% 93% 2%
Ind 18.0% 775 59.0% 457 47% 47% 6%
Total 100% 4,306 59.0% 2539 46.7% 51.0% 2.3%

Recorded …………………………………………. 44.8 ….52.8…. 2.4%

Colorado

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes  Hicken-looper Beau-prez Oth
Dem 30.9% 820 73.0% 599 92% 6% 2%
Rep 32.9% 873 77.1% 673 12% 86% 2%
Ind 36.2% 961 75.1% 721 49% 42% 9%
Total 100% 2,654 100% 1993 49.4% 46.0% 4.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 49.1 …. 46.2…. 4.7%

Maine

Regist.  Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Michaud Lepage Other
Dem 31.9% 255 76.2% 194 91% 5% 4%
Rep 27.1% 217 76.2% 165 9% 87% 4%
Ind 41.0% 328 76.2% 250 45% 40% 15%
 Totl  100% 799 76.2% 609 49.9% 41.6% 8.5%

Recorded …………………………………………. 43.3 …. 48.3…. 8.4%

Vermont

Regist. Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Shumlin Milne Other
Dem 47.0% 152 59.9% 91 92% 4% 4%
Rep 31.0% 100 59.9% 60 10% 84% 6%
Ind 22.0% 71 59.9% 43 45% 35% 20%
 Totl  100% 324 59.9% 194 56.2% 35.6% 8.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 46.4 …. 45.3…. 8.3%

Pennsylvania

Regist.  Split Regist. Voters Turnout Votes Wolf Corbett
Dem 49.5% 3,030 52.0% 1,576 92.0% 8.0%
Rep 36.7% 2,246 63.0% 1,416 16.0% 84.0%
Ind 13.8% 845 56.7% 479 55.0% 45.0%
Total 100% 6,121 56.7% 3470 55.9% 44.1%

Recorded …………………………………………. 54.9 …. 45.1%

California

Regist.  Split Reg Voters Turnout Votes Brown Kashkari
Dem 43.3% 6,111 45.0% 2,750 95.4% 4.6%
Rep 28.1% 3,966 47.6% 1,888 12.0% 88.0%
Ind 28.6% 4,036 46.0% 1,858 60.0% 40.0%
Total 100% 14,113 46.0% 6496 61.0% 39.0%

Recorded …………………………………………. 60.5 …. 39.5%

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 6, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

2014 Election Fraud: Four statistical models

2014 Election Fraud:  Four Statistical Models

Richard Charnin
Dec. 28, 2015
Updated: Jan.18, 2016

This post reviews the following statistical models which strongly indicate fraud in the 2014 Governor elections:
1) True Vote Model, 2) Cumulative Vote Shares, 3) Voter Registration vs. Exit Poll Party-ID, 4) Uncounted Votes Cast (Census).

Democratic Vote Shares: Statistical Summary

Dem Vote% CVS TVM Census D/R ExitP D/R Registered
KY 43.8 49.1 48.0 49.3 na 54-39
MD * 47.2 52.9 56.4 59.1 na 55-26
WI 46.7 50.2 51.6 51.3 36-37 43-41
FL 47.1 51.1 49.7 50.9 31-35 39-35
IL 46.4 54.4 54.2 54.8 43-30 47-35
MA 46.6 55.9 55.6 56.5 na 35-11
CO 49.1 na 50.7 53.1 28-32 31-33
GA 44.8 na 48.2 52.2 35-37 39-43
KS 46.1 na 48.3 52.0 25-48 24-44
ME 43.3 na 51.5 52.3 30-31 33-27
MI 46.8 na 52.4 54.3 39-30 44-37
OH 32.9 na 37.7 41.7 32-36 41-42


Cumulative Vote Shares

The CVS method  uses actual precinct votes in each county. The data is sorted by  precinct size. The votes and shares are accumulated and  displayed graphically. Typically, in the biggest counties, Democratic shares peak at the 10% CVS mark and decline at the final 100% (recorded vote). This is counter-intuitive because a) the most populous counties are in urban locations which are strongly Democratic and b) as the number of votes are accumulated, the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) should result in a Steady state of equibrium in which Democratic and Republican vote shares are nearly constant.

Click these links to view the summary 2014 CVS analysis (each has a  link to the precinct votes for each county):  IL  FL  WI  MD MA  KY

The True Vote Model (TVM)

The 2012 presidential election is used as a basis for returning 2014 voters. There are two options for estimating  returning voters: the Recorded Vote and estimated True Vote.

The TVM closely matched the CVS in all governor elections except  for Maryland.  Hogan(R) won the recorded vote by 51.0- 47.2%, a 66,000 vote margin.  Brown(D) won the True Vote by 56.4-41.9%, a 251,000 margin. The CVS analysis understates Brown’s vote since precinct votes were provided only for Election Day; early, provisional and absentee precinct voting were not included. This omission dramatically reduced  Brown’s CVS since he had 54% of the excluded votes.  Click these links to view the 2014 Governor True Vote Model:  MD  IL  FL  WI  KY MA ME  OH KS MI GA CO

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-577.html

In each election cycle, the Census Bureau interviews 60,000 households nationwide to estimate  how many were registered and voted in each state.The national margin of error (MoE) is 0.3% for 60,000 respondents at the 90% confidence level. The MoE is approximately 2% for each state.

In 2014, 92.2 million votes were cast  but just 78.8 million recorded. The 13.4 million discrepancy (14.5%) was greater than in any presidential election. What is going on here?

In every one of the 1968-2012 presidential elections,  votes cast exceeded the recorded vote. The percentage of uncounted votes has declined steadily since 1988, from 10.4% to 2.9% in 2012. Uncounted votes peaked at 10.6 million in 1988 and declined to near zero in 2008. Approximately 75% of uncounted votes were Democratic (50% in minority locations).

The recorded vote was adjusted  to total votes cast by adding the uncounted votes. The majority (60-75%) of uncounted votes were  assumed to be Democratic, based on the historical fact that approximately 50% of uncounted votes are in minority locations.

Uncounted Votes = Census Total Votes Cast – Votes Recorded
True Vote (est.) = Recorded Vote + Uncounted vote

Presidential  Votes Cast and Recorded

Cast Recorded Diff Pct
1968 79.0 73.0 6.0 7.6%
1972 85.8 77.7 8.1 9.4%
1976 86.7 81.5 5.2 6.0%
1980 93.1 86.6 6.5 7.0%
1984 101.9 92.7 9.2 9.0%
1988 102.2 91.6 10.6 10.4%
1992 113.9 104.4 9.5 8.3%
1996 105.0 96.4 8.6 8.2%
2000 110.8 105.6 5.2 4.7%
2004 125.7 122.3 3.4 2.7%
2008 131.1 131.4 -0.3 -0.2%
2012 132.9 129.1 3.8 2.9%
2014 92.2 78.8 13.4 14.5%

Political Party Strength 

The simplest measure of  party strength in a state’s voting population is the breakdown-by-party totals from its voter registration statistics from the websites of the Secretaries of State or the Boards of Elections. As of 2014, 28 states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to indicate a party preference when registering to vote.

In 2014,  the party voter preference/registration split was 40.5D-35.3R-24.2I.  The  2014 National Exit Poll indicated a 35D-36R-28I Party-ID split in forcing a match to the recorded vote (Dem 46.2-Rep 52.9%). Assuming the voter registration split and the Party-ID vote shares, the Democrats  and Republicans were essentially tied.

The registered voter split for the 12 Governor elections in this analysis was 40.6D-34.4R-24.4I, a very close match to the national split.

These 22 states do not allow party preference in voter registration:
Alabama,Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The partisan “demographics”  were obtained from the state’s party registration statistics (in late 2014 whenever possible). For the 22 states that don’t allow registration by party, Gallup’s annual polling of voter party identification is the next best metric of party strength.

National Exit Poll 2014 Party-ID (match recorded vote)

Party-ID Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 35% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 36% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 29% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 46.2% 52.5% 1.9%
Registration Split Dem Repub Ind
Dem 41% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 35% 5% 94% 1%
Ind 24% 42% 56% 4%
Total 100% 49.6% 48.7% 1.7%

Matching the Recorded and True Vote using the Party Registration split

To match the recorded vote,  an implausibly low  percentage of Democrats had to have voted for the Democratic candidate. Note the difference between  the percentage of Democrats required to match the recorded vote and True vote shares. Democratic and Republican candidates usually win approximately 90-92% of  registered Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Percentage Share of Registered Democrats Required to Match

 Match Recorded Vote True      Vote  Match Recorded  True Vote
MA 58.5 83.9 ME 66.6 92.0
MD 68.9 84.9 OH 53.5 92.1
KY 72.4 81.7 KS 86.1 95.5
WI 88.8 94.7 MI 75.5 88.1
FL 81.3 88.1 GA 87.7 93.3
IL 83.0 91.0 CO 88.6 93.8


 KENTUCKY

Conway (D) lost the recorded vote  by 52.5-43.8% despite the fact that the Democrats led 53.4-38.8% in voter registration. Bevin needed an implausible 24.6% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. Assuming just 81.7% of Democrats voted for Conway, he won by 48.8-47.5%, closely matching the CVS and True Vote.

According to the 2014 Census, 1.525 million total votes were cast in 2014.  In 2015, Conway won by 49.3-47.0% – assuming he had 60% of an estimated 50,000 uncounted votes.

Of 2,298,000 registered  voters, 974,000 (42.4%) voted. If  39% of Democrats voted and Conway had 88%, he won by 49.0-47.3%. If 43% of Democrats voted, he won by 54-42.3%.

Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 72.4% 24.6% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
Recorded 100% 43.8% 52.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 427 511 36

 

Party Reg Split Conway Bevin Curtis
Democrat 53.4% 81.7% 15.3% 3%
Republican 38.8% 4% 92% 4%
Other 7.8% 46% 47% 7%
True Vote 100% 48.8% 47.5% 3.7%
Votes (000) 974 475 463 36

 

Votes Cast Total Conway Bevin Curtis
Recorded 974 426.6 512.0 36.0
Uncounted (est) 50 30.0 18.2 1.9
2014 Census 1024 505 481 38
Adj. Share   49.3% 47.0% 3.7%

 

Party Reg Split Conway Turnout 39%  41% 43%
Democrat 53.4% 88% 18.3% 19.3% 20.2%
Repub 38.8% 6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0%
Other 7.8% 50% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7%
Conway 49.0% 51.5% 54.0%
Bevin 47.3% 44.8% 42.3%

 

MARYLAND

Hogan (R) won the recorded vote by 51.0-47.3%. Brown(D) had 53.7% of early votes, 45.3% on Election Day and 54.5% of absentee and provisional ballots. Precinct votes on touchscreens and optical scanners were provided for Election Day only.

When 295,000 uncounted votes are added to the recorded vote, Brown is the winner by 51.2-47.0% .  When  Election Day CVS  at the 10% mark is added to the 390,000 early, absentee and provisional votes, Brown is a  52.9-45.5% winner.

 Census Votes (000) Total Brown Hogan Other
True 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted (Unctd) 295 221 68 5
Total Census 2,028 1,198 794 35
Share   59.1% 39.2% 1.7%

 

Voter Reg Pct Brown Hogan Other
Democrat 54.9% 84.9% 13.1% 2.0%
Republican 25.7% 4% 95% 1.0%
Other 19.4% 45% 53% 2.0%
Share 100% 56.4% 41.9% 1.7%
Total 1,733 977 726 30
Adjusted Total Brown Share Hogan Share Other Share
Early 306 164 53.7% 137 44.8% 4.5 1.5%
Election Day 1,342 608 45.3% 711 52.9% 23.5 1.7%
Absentee/prov 85 46 54.5% 37 43.4% 1.8 2.1%
 Recorded 1,733 819 47.25% 884 51.0% 30 1.7%
 CVS adj
Early/abs/prov 390 210 53.9% 174 44.5% 6 1.6%
CVS @ 10% 1,391 693 52.5% 603 45.7% 23 1.7%
Adj. Total 1,709 904 52.9% 777 45.4% 29 1.7%

Notes:- Beth Clarkson, a PhD in statistics, did an analysis of 2014 cumulative vote share anomalies: How Trustworthy are Electronic Voting Systems in the US

– A statistical study by G.F.
Webb of Vanderbilt University reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes:Precinct
 Size
 Matters: ­
The 
Large
 Precinct
 Bias
 in
 US 
Presidential
 Elections

– Francois Choquette and James Johnson exposed anomalies in the 2012 primaries:2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

– Kathy Dopp is a mathematician and an expert on election auditing. She has written a comprehensive analysis of the 2014 elections:
Were the 2014 United States Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections Manipulated?  Dopp wrote:
Is it possible electronic vote-count manipulation determines who controls government in the United States? The probability that the disparities between predicted and reported 2014 election vote margins were caused by random sampling error is virtually zero. A method for extending and simplifying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA)’s measure for necessity reveals that lack of effective post-election audits is a necessary condition for the occurrence of high levels of disparity between statewide polls and election results. Maryland’s 2014 gubernatorial contest is consistent with an explanation of vote miscount having altered its outcome.  An analysis of Maryland’s partisan voter registration, turnout, and vote data by ballot type statistically confirms vote miscount as an explanation for its unexpected outcome.

Maryland, Illinois, Florida, and Kansas gubernatorial contests exhibited sufficient disparities between polls and election results (PED) to alter election outcomes; all used inauditable voting systems or failed to conduct post-election audits (PEA)s. Vermont’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, and South Dakota PED were large but smaller than winning margins.

Kansas and North Carolina senatorial contests exhibited sufficient PED to alter election outcomes and no audits were conducted. Virginia’s PED was within one percent of sufficient to alter its outcome. In Arkansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Nebraska PED magnitude were large but smaller than winning margins.

A case study of Maryland’s unexpected 2014 gubernatorial outcome affirms there is, as yet, only an explanation of vote manipulation consistent with the statistical disparity patterns in Maryland’s pre-election poll predictions, and its partisan voter registration, turnout and vote data by ballot type.

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

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

A Collage of Election Fraud Graphics

LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

 

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