http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201 ... -of-fraud/

Oct. 29, 2012

Everyone thinks about problems every day. But how sure are they that their conclusions on how to solve them are valid? My new book Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts deals with uncertainty in our election systems. How do we know that the votes are counted as cast? If the information we are given is tainted, how do we know? We must distinguish between intuitive and logical reasoning. Yet decisions must be made everyday where there are multiple choices.

http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Deceit-For ... ewpoints=1

Which make the most sense? Which is the most probable? If you flip a coin and it comes up heads five times in a row, is the next flip more likely to be tails? Is a baseball player with a .300 batting average who has not had a base hit in his last 10 at bats due to get one his next time up? In decision making, we always need to consider probabilities.

In mathematics we need unambiguous definitions and rules. In other words, we need logical thinking. Logic is defined as a systematic study of the conditions and procedures required to make valid inferences.

We start with a statement and infer other statements are valid and justified as a consequence of the initial statement. It is important to note that logical inference does not mean the statement is true, only that it is valid. If the starting statement is true, then a logically derived result must also be true.

For example, it is a statement of fact that Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election, so there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. But according to the 2004 National Exit Poll, there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters. This is clearly impossible.

Furthermore, since the 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible and adjusted to match the recorded vote, then the recorded vote must also have been impossible. This simple deductive reasoning proves 2004 Election Fraud. But the recorded 2000 vote was also fraudulent - as were all elections before that. None reflected true voter intent. The simple proof: there were 6-10 million uncounted votes in every election prior to 2004. Votes cast exceeded votes recorded by 6-10 million. And 70-80% of the uncounted votes were Democratic.

Each National Exit poll is forced to match the bogus recorded vote based on bogus returning voters from the prior bogus election. It's a recursive process. The polls assume all elections are fair and accurate. The same returning voter logic applied to the 1988, 1992 and 2008 elections shows that they were also fraudulent; the National Exit Polls were forced to match the recorded vote by indicating there were more returning Bush voters than were alive to vote. The corporate media has never seen fit to explain these recurring impossibilities.

Science is “cumulative”. New developments may refine or extend past knowledge. There is no such thing as a foolproof system. What is needed is a probability-based system for many types of problems. It is the only rational way of thinking.

There is no way to eliminate all risk (error) in a system model (or election poll). The problem is to evaluate risk and measure it based on a probability analysis. Every important problem requires a comparison of the odds. Probability analysis supplements classical logical thinking but does not replace it. In fact, classical logic is required in every step in the development of probability theory.

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:29 pm

]]>

Richard Charnin

Jan. 22, 2013

The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) has been updated to include the 2012 election. Anyone can run the model and calculate the True Vote for every presidential election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These deceptively simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight.

In the 1968-2012 elections, the Republicans led the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%. The Democrats led the True Vote by 49.6-45.1%, a 7.4% margin discrepancy.

The calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the Final National Exit Poll which is always adjusted to match the official recorded vote. It is a mathematical matrix of deceit. Consider the impossible turnout of previous election Republican voters required to match the recorded vote in 1972 (113%), 1988 (103%), 1992 (119%), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). This recurring anomaly is a major smoking gun of massive election fraud.

Methods 2-5 calculate the vote shares based on feasible returning voter assumptions. There are no arbitrary adjustments. Method 2 assumes returning voters based on the previous election recorded vote; method 3 on total votes cast (includes uncounted votes); method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; method 5 on the previous (calculated) True Vote.

In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically.

Final election vote shares are dependent on just two factors: voter turnout (measured as a percentage of previous living election voters) and voter preference (measured as percentage of new and returning voters).

The TVM uses best estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The vote shares are the adjusted National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote.

It turns out that the Final Exit Poll match to the recorded vote is primarily accomplished by changing the returning voter mix to overweight Republicans. For example in 2004, the National Exit Poll indicated that 43% of voters were returning Bush and 37% Gore. In 2008, 46% were returning Bush and just 37% Kerry. Both turnout ratios were impossible and implied millions more Bush voters than were living.

Note that in 2004, changing the returning voter mix was not sufficient to force a match to the recorded vote. Bush shares of returning and new voters from the 12:22am NEP timeline (13047 respondents) had to be inflated as well in the final (13660).

More at the link...

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201 ... del-proof/

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:06 pm

]]>

Richard Charnin

Jan.31, 2013

I have written two books on election fraud which prove that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. Unlike the misinformation spread in the media, voting machine “glitches” are not due to machine failures. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.

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

The RECORDED vote has deviated from the TRUE VOTE in EVERY election since 1968 – always favoring the Republicans.

In the 1988-2008 elections, the Democrats won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-42% – but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% margin discrepancy. The state exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 126 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 126 which exceeded the MoE, 123 red-shifted to the Republican. The probability P of that anomaly is ABSOLUTE ZERO (5E-106). That is scientific notation for

P= .000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000005.

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 Clinton 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 Clinton 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 him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV). In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in this election.

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 and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls.

The adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000 – and only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the adjusted Final NEP overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6.5 million. In order to match the recorded vote, the NEP required an impossible 110% living Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004.

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. But Kerry’s unadjusted state exit poll aggregate 51.0% share understated his True Vote Model. There was further confirmation of a Kerry landslide.

More at the link...

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201 ... -analysis/

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:00 pm

]]>

A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers. The True Vote Model is an application based on Matrix Algebra. The key to understanding the theory is mathematical subscript notation. The actual mathematics is really nothing more than simple arithmetic.

The 1968-2012 National True Vote Model (TVM) is easy to use. Just two inputs are required: the election year and calculation method (1-5). Method 1 calculates the adjusted National Exit Poll which is always forced to match the recorded vote. Method 5 calculates the True Vote.

The True Vote (TV) is a function of the number of previous election returning and new voters in the current election and each candidate’s share of these voters.

TV = f(turnout, vote shares)

The US Vote Census estimates the number of votes cast in each election. Total votes cast include uncounted ballots, as opposed to the official recorded vote.

The True Vote Model is based on total votes cast – as it should be. There were approximately 40 million uncounted votes in the 6 elections from 1988-2008. Uncounted ballots are strongly Democratic.

Let TVP = total votes cast in previous election

Let TVC = total votes cast in the current election

The number of returning voters (RV) is estimated based on previous election voter mortality (5%) and an estimated turnout rate (TR).

For example, in 2004 there was an estimated 98% turnout (TR) of living 2000 voters. Voter mortality (VM) is 5% over four years (1.25% per year). We calculate returning 2000 voters as:

RV = TVP * (1- VM) * TR

RV = 103.2 = 110.8 * .95 * .98

There were 125.7 million votes cast in 2004. Therefore, we calculate the number of new voters TVN as:

TVN = TVC – RV

TVN = 24.5 = 125.7 – 103.2

In the base case we assume an equal turnout rate of previous election Democratic, Republican and other (third-party) voters.

V (1) = returning Democratic voters

V (2) = returning Republican voters

V (3) = returning other (third-party) voters

RV = V (1) + V (2) + V (3) = total returning voters

V (4) = TVC – RV = number of new voters.

Calculate m (i) as the percentage mix of total votes cast (TVC) for returning and new voters V(i):

m (i) = V (i) / TVC, i=1, 4

Let a (i, j) = candidates (j=1,3) vote shares of returning and new voters (i=1,4).

True Vote calculation matrix

Vote Mix Dem Rep Other

Demm1a11a12a13

Repm2a21a22a23

Othm3a31a32a33

Dnvm4a41a42a43

The total Democratic share is:

VS(1) = ∑ m(i) * a(i, 1), i=1,4

more at the link

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201 ... rmulation/

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:54 pm

]]>

[url]http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/

[/url]

As of Nov.1:

Obama has 315 expected electoral votes; 98% win probability (490 of 500 trials).

He leads the state poll weighted average by 48.5-45.4%.

He leads in 15 of 18 Battleground states by 50.4-47.2% with 175 of 205 EV.

Obama caught Romney in the RCP National average: 47.4-47.3%.

Rasmussen and Gallup are Likely Voter (LV) polls which lean to the GOP.

Rasmussen: Romney leads by 49-47%.

Gallup: Romney leads by 51-46%.

LV polls are a subset of the registered voter (RV) sample. The LV subset always understates the Democratic vote. The majority of voters eliminated by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are newly registered Democrats.

Obama leads in the scientific Rand poll 50.4-44.9% (52.9% of the two-party vote). The Rand poll does not eliminate any participating respondents, but rather weights their voter preference and intention to vote on a scale of 1-10.

The True Vote Model indicates that Obama would have 54.2% of the two-party vote with 348 expected EV in a fraud-free election. Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:39 pm

]]>

And, the identical anomaly occurred in at least a dozen races, with the Mittster always gaining, no matter who he was competing against.

Did you look at the other states besides WI?

Statistics: Posted by Usrename — Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:44 pm

]]>

There is another possibility for the small vs. large precincts discrepancy: that determined small organizations with ground game (like Santorum and Paul) can have more of an impact in the small precincts, while the larger numbers in the large precincts are more influenced by the greater media spending (and corporate news media support) that Romney had. (Also keeping in mind that in a Santorum vs. Romney contest, many people bizarrely think of Romney as the sane one, and they may be more prevalent in more urban areas.) You may disagree with that, but in the absence of proof it can be argued.

Statistics: Posted by JackRiddler — Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:29 am

]]>

OpEdNews – Michael Collins – Rigged Elections for Romney? – 22 October 2012

A group of independent researchers caught a pattern of apparent vote flipping during the 2012 Republican primaries that consistently favored Mitt Romney. A form of election fraud, vote flipping occurs when votes are changed from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation.

Vote flipping is difficult to detect because the vote totals remain the same for each precinct. In one of several possible scenarios, an instruction is given to a precinct level voting machine or to a county-level central tabulator. The corrupted totals from precincts are sent from county election officials to state elections board and published as final results. (Primary documents for this article: Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies, August 13, 2012 and 2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns, September 2012).

>>>snip

The findings showed a consistent pattern of increasing votes and vote percentages for Romney in the precinct vote tally. The pattern emerges when precinct vote tallies are presented by candidate based on the size of a county precinct.

Wisconsin, for example, is represented in the graph below. Moving from the smallest to largest precincts, you can see Romney’s percent of the vote takes off and those of the others drop after about 7% of the votes are counted. Romney’s percentage of precinct votes goes up (the upward slope of the green line) while those of the three other candidates decline.

>>>much more

And there's also:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking ... 20598.html

and:

from:http://www.davidpakman.com/

Statistics: Posted by Usrename — Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:32 am

]]>

Statistics: Posted by harry ashburn — Thu May 10, 2012 2:54 pm

]]>

Richard Charnin

April 26, 2012

The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model (TVM2012)is actually a combination of two models: 1) the pre-election Monte Carlo Simulation Election Model (based on the latest state polling) and 2) the post-election True Vote Model, based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding estimates of 2012 vote shares for each candidate).

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201 ... ion-model/

Statistics: Posted by Richard Charnin — Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:30 pm

]]>