RSS

Tag Archives: voter turnout

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

Richard Charnin
Sept.24, 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

According to the 2016 Census, 87.3% (137.5 million) of 157.6 million registered voters cast ballots, the same turnout as in the 1996-2016 elections. There were 136.2 million votes recorded – a 1% difference. In 1996-2016, there was a 3% difference between votes cast and recorded.

According to the Gallup Voter Preference Survey, on Election Day, 39.8% were Independents, 31.9% Democrats and 28.3% Republicans.

Assume registered voter turnout of
– 87% Independents
Trump won Independents by 8%. Pre-election polls indicate he won by 10%.

– 85% Democrats
(6% stayed home – or 12% of Sanders voters).
Clinton had 88% of Dems – but that assumes Jill Stein had just 2%.
Jill probably had more.

– 91% Republicans
Trump had 89%. Johnson took away votes.

Result: Trump wins by 47.6-45.2% (3.4 million votes)
Stein has 2.9% (4 million) compared to her 1.07% recorded vote (1.45 million).
So the following is CONSERVATIVE. Trump probably did better.

Party Turnout Voted….Clinton….Trump… Johnson… Stein….Other
Ind… 87%…….34.4%…….40%…….48%…….4.0%….5.0%…3.0%
Dem… 85%……27.1%…….88%……..8%…….1.0%….2.0%…1.0%
Rep… 91%…….25.7%……..7%…….89%…….3.0%….1.0%…0.0%

Vote..87.3%…….. 100%……45.2%…..47.6%……2.8%….2.9%…1.5%
Votes………………137.5……62.15…..65.51……3.81…..3.97…2.05
Recorded
Share………….. 136.22…..48.25%….46.17%…..3.29%…1.07%..1.23%
Votes…………….. 136.22…..65.72…..62.89……4.48……1.45…1.67

Sensitivity Analysis
(Trump wins all 25 turnout scenarios- see spreadsheet tables)
Trump Vote Margin
Best case: 4.9 million (48.2-44.7%)
Base case: 3.35 million (47.6-45.2%)
Worst case: 1.8 million (47.1-45.8%)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

 

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

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

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 15, 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

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Assumption
Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

Reg Voter  Gallup Base Case
Turnout Voter Affil Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
70% Ind 38% 40% 50% 5% 5%
65% Dem 31% 88% 8% 1% 3%
70% Rep 27% 7% 89% 3% 1%
Vote share 100.0% 45.2% 48.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Votes 136.2 61.6 65.8 4.4 4.4
Trump %
Dem   Rep Turnout      
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.1%
64% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9%
65% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7%
66% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5%
67% 47.6% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3%
Trump Vote
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.6 66.8
64% 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.6
65% 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3
66% 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8 66.1
67% 64.9 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8
Clinton %
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 45.2% 45.0% 44.9% 44.7% 44.5%
64% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9% 44.7%
65% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9%
66% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1%
67% 45.9% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2%
Trump %  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.5%
64% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2%
65% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8%
66% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.4%
67% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1%
Trump  Vote  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2
64% 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7
65% 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
66% 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7
67% 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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: , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis