Election Fraud Analysis

Richard Charnin

Jan.30, 2016

Updated: Feb.8, 2016

KEY Election Fraud Posts

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications

Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview

Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis

Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy

Why Won't the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications

Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

To Believe Bush Won in 2004, You Must Believe...

To Believe Obama Won the Recorded Vote by 9.5 Million...

Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ (updated 4/9/12)

Track-record: 2004-2012 forecast and 1968-2012 True Vote Model

Institutional Investor: Technology Raises Election Fraud Issues

Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections?

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database (35 tables and  graphs)

2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election

2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/democratic-primaries-election-fraud-probability-analysis/

Introduction: Summary of the Key Points

Mathematical models

Prove election fraud and confirm unadjusted exit polls.

True Vote (TVM) - plausible vote shares of estimated returning voter mix.

Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS) - sorted county precinct votes.

Voter Turnout (VTM) -  registered voter turnout  vs. exit poll Party-ID (forced to match)

2012 - 2014 Governor elections Voter Turnout assumptions

Favored the Republican, therefore the Democrat must have done better than indicated.

TVM: 2012 presidential recorded vote understated Obama’s true vote.

VTM: Registered Republican percentage voter turnout was  higher than the Democrat.

Myth of 50/50 electorate

The Democrats would win every national election if votes were accurately counted.

They get an estimated 83% of the minority vote (30% of the electorate).

Therefore they need just 36% of white voters (70% of the electorate) to reach 50%.

1968- 2012: Census indicates 80 million more votes cast than recorded (uncounted).

Pre-election polls are biased due to the Likely Voter Cutoff Model.

Eliminates newly registered voters and others (mostly Democratic) deemed unlikely to vote.

Unadjusted exit polls are always fixed to match the recorded vote.

Corporate media-funded pollsters always assume ZERO fraud.

Unadjusted exit polls are not for public viewing.

In 2012, just 31 states were exit polled. Why?

2002 - HAVA (Help America Vote Act)

Installed unverifiable touchscreens; central tabulators.

Only a few states have a strong auditing process.

Web / Blog

Institutional Investor: Technology Raises Election Fraud Issues

Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections?

Why do all election forecasters,political scientists, academics and media pundits avoid discussing election fraud?

The True Vote Model

The calculation of  vote shares is based on two factors:

Voter Turnout and Vote Shares of new and returning voters.

Total voters (T) is the sum of returning voters (R) and new voters (N).

Therefore N = T - R

Vote shares of returning and new voters are estimated based on the exit poll crosstab:

How Did You Vote in the Prior Election?

The exit pollsters always assume zero fraud and often adjust the percentage mix of returning voters and/or the vote shares to match the recorded vote. But there were more returning Bush  (phantom) voters than were alive in the 1992, 2004, 2008 elections. This is proof of election fraud.

In 2004, the exit pollsters inflated the number of returning Bush 2000 voters to 52.6 million (43% of 122.3 mil. votes) and increased  Bush shares of Kerry, Bush and New (DNV) voters.

2004 National Exit Poll (adjusted to match the recorded vote)

2000        Voters        Mix        Kerry        Bush        Other Turnout

Gore        45.25        37%        90%        10%         0%        93.4%

Bush        52.59        43          9         91         0        109.7 (Bush had 50.5 million votes in 2000)

Other          3.67          3        64        14        22        97.7

DNV        20.79        17        54        44         2        -

Total        122.3        100%        48.27%        50.73        1.0%

Votes        (mil)     122.3    59.03    62.04    1.22

2004 True Vote Model (includes 3.4 million uncounted votes)

2000        Voters        Mix        Kerry        Bush        Other        Turnout

Gore        52.13        41.5%        91%        9%        0%        98%

Bush        47.36        37.7        10        90        0        98

Other          3.82          3.0        64        14        22        98

DNV        22.42        17.8        57        41        2        -

Total        125.7        100%        53.6%        45.4%        1.0%

Votes        (mil)     125.7    67.4      57.1      1.25

Vote share calculations:

Kerry = 53.6% = .415*.91 +.377*.10 + .03*.64 + .178*.57

Bush = 45.4% = .415*.09 +.377*.90 + .03*.14 + .178*.41

Run the numbers: 1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model

1988-2008 Presidential Elections: The Smoking Gun Probability

The Democrats won the recorded vote by 48-46%.

They won the state and national unadjusted exit polls by 52-42% - an 8% discrepancy.

135 of 274 state exit polls exceeded the margin of error (only 14 expected)

131 of 135 moved from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican.

Sensitivity Analysis

Calculate probabilities that N of 274 state presidential exit polls exceed the average exit poll margin of error (MoE).

For example, the average theoretical MoE for the 274 polls based on sample size is  2.77%. Adding the standard 30% cluster factor, the average exit poll MoE over the 6 elections is 3.60%.

N=135 exit polls deviated by at least 3.60% from the recorded vote.

The probability is ZERO: 1.2E-83.   That’s 83 zeros to the right of the decimal.

If the average MoE was 5.54% (based on an impossibly high 100% cluster factor) the probability would be 2.3E-35 (ZERO).

 Cluster Factor Avg MoE N Polls > MoE 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Prob 0% 2.77% 172 13 35 29 23 32 40 1.0E-123 10% 3.05% 159 13 33 26 20 28 39 1.5E-108 20% 3.32% 151 13 31 23 19 26 39 4.1E-100 30% 3.60% 135 12 27 19 17 23 37 1.20E-83 40% 3.88% 128 12 27 18 15 22 34 9.21E-77 50% 4.16% 118 11 23 17 12 21 34 3.25E-67 60% 4.43% 112 10 22 17 11 19 33 1.17E-61 70% 4.71% 105 9 21 16 10 17 32 2.35E-55 80% 4.99% 93 9 18 14 8 16 28 5.03E-45 90% 5.26% 87 9 17 13 8 15 25 4.18E-40 100% 5.54% 81 9 14 12 7 15 24 2.30E-35

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure.  Actual exit poll data is adjusted in all exit poll categories (crosstabs).

The number of returning Republican voters in 1972, 1988, 1992 and 2004 was adjusted in the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote.  The pollsters implied impossible turnout in the “Voted in the Prior Election” crosstab.

For example, the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of the 2004 electorate were returning Bush 2000 voters. But he had just 50.5 million votes in 2000.  Approximately 2 million died (1% annual mortality).

Therefore at most 48.5 million could have  returned in 2004. But the National exit poll indicated that 52.6 million returned. In other words, there had to be 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters. Impossible.

If 47 million (97% of living Bush 2000 voters) returned in 2004, simple arithmetic proves that there were at least 5.6 million (52.6-47.0) phantom Bush voters.

2000: Myth of a Close Election

Bush stole the election, He won Florida by a  bogus 537 votes. The recount was aborted by the Supreme Court. Bush was “selected” by five Republican justices..

Gore won the national recorded vote by 540,000 - but did much better than that.

He won the unadjusted state exit polls by at least 5 million votes (50.7-45.6%).

Gore won the unadjusted FL Exit Poll (1816 respondents, 3.0% MoE) by 53.4-43.6%. There is a 97% probability that he won by at least 200,000 votes.

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents) by 48.5-46.3%, or 2.5 million votes.

 Resp.l Gore Bush Nader Other 13,108 6,359 6,065 523 161 48.51% 46.27% 3.99% 1.23%

The 2000 True Vote Model matched the Unadjusted State Exit Poll aggregate.

 Voted '96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other New/DNV 17,732 16% 52% 43% 5% Clinton 48,763 44% 87% 10% 3% Dole 35,464 32% 7% 91% 2% Perot/oth 8,866 8% 23% 65% 12% Total cast 110,825 100% 50.68% 45.60% 3.72% 110,825 56,166 50,536 4,123

Monte Carlo 2004 Electoral Vote Simulation

State projections based on final pre-election polls adjusted for undecided voters.

5000 simulated election trials

Kerry wins: 51-47%  (5 million votes)

Electoral Vote Win Probability: 98%

 2004 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote) GENDER Mix Kerry Bush Other Female 54% 51% 48% 1% Male 46% 45% 54% 1% Total 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%

2004 National Exit Poll: How  Voted in 2000

Impossible 110% living Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004

 2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout DNV 20,790 17% 54% 44% 2% - - Gore 45,249 37% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93% Bush 52,586 43% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110% Other 3,669 3% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97% Total 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% 100,185 94% 59,031 62,040 1,223

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: 13660 respondents voted for  Kerry

 Resp. Kerry Bush Other 13,660 7,064 6,414 182 share 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (12:22am vote shares))

 2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other DNV 23,116 18.38% 57% 41% 2% Gore 48,248 38.37% 91% 8% 1% Bush 49,670 39.50% 10% 90% 0% Other 4,703 3.74% 64% 17% 19% Total 125,737 100% 51.8% 46.8% 1.5% 125,737 65,070 58,829 1,838

2004 True Vote Model

(based on 2000 state exit poll aggregate)

 2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other DNV 22,381 17.8% 57% 41% 2% Gore 52,055 41.4% 91% 8% 1% Bush 47,403 37.7% 10% 90% 0% Other 3,898 3.1% 64% 17% 19% Total 125,737 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.4% Votes 67,362 56,666 1,709

Swing vs. Red Shift

Exit poll naysayers said that there was no correlation (zero slope) between the red-shift in the 2004 state exit polls and vote swing from 2000 to 2004. They claimed this disproved the 2004 election fraud argument.

But they were comparing apples and oranges. The naysayer argument was based on a false premise:  the 2000 and 2004 recorded votes represented true voter intent.

When Vote swing based on the 2000 and 2004 True Vote (e.g. the unadjusted exit polls) is plotted against the 2004 exit poll red-shift, the negative  slope clearly indicates fraud.

Try out the 1988-2008 State and National True Vote Model

Bush stole OH in 2004 by 50.8-48.7%.  What was the True Vote?

Click the INPUT sheet tab. Enter: 2004, OH and calculation CODE (1-4).

Then click on the MAIN sheet tab to view the results.

Urban Legend

It was a counter-intuitive myth that in 2004 Bush improved over his 2000 vote in Democratic Urban locations while he actually declined in rural Republican areas. This article by  Michael Collins was a breakthrough in the analysis of the 2004 stolen election.

According to the National Exit Poll, Bush made incredible gains in the cities over his 2000 vote share. The gains were large enough to offset his drop in core support in rural areas and give him a 3% victory. This is an implausible anomaly and proof that votes were stolen in big cities and suburbs.

New York is a perfect example of where Bush stole votes in 2004.

2008: Obama landslide

Unadjusted National (61-37%) and state polls (58-40%) confirmed by TVM

 Total Resp. Obama McCain Other Votes 17,836 10,873 6,641 322 Share 100% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

 Final 2008 NEP (17836 resp) (forced to match recorded vote) GENDER Mix Obama McCain Other Male 47% 49% 49% 2% Female 53% 56% 43% 1% Share 100% 52.87% 45.59% 1.54% Votes(mil) 131.463 69.50 59.94 2.02

 Voted 2004 2008 Exact match to TVM & unadj state 2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other DNV - 17.66 13.43% 71% 27% 2% Kerry 50.18% 57.11 43.44% 89% 9% 2% Bush 44.62% 50.78 38.63% 17% 82% 1% Other 5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72% 26% 2% Total 131.46 100% 58.00% 40.35% 1.65% Votes 131.463 76.25 53.04 2.17

 Voted 2004 2008 Impossible returning Bush voters 2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other DNV - 17.09 13% 71% 27% 2% Kerry 42.53% 48.64 37% 89% 9% 2% Bush 52.87% 60.47 46% 17% 82% 1% Other 4.60% 5.26 4% 72% 26% 2% Total 131.46 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54% Votes 131.463 69.50 59.95 2.02

Cumulative Vote Shares: 2010 Wisconsin Senate

Milwaukee County is the poster child for CVS. It shows up in every Wisconsin state-wide "election". In 2010, an estimated 61,000 Feingold votes flipped to Johnson.

Racine is second on the GOP list: an estimated 19,000 votes flipped from Feingold to Johnson.

Wisconsin Walker Recall

Counter-intuitive decline in Democratic Cumulative Vote shares

2014 Wisconsin Governor

Walker won by 52.2-46.7%.

Burke won the CVS by 50.2-48.7%. She won the TVM by 51.6-47.3%.

Burke won the VTM by 50.5-48.4% assuming 81.6% GOP vs. 77.0% Dem turnout.

 2012 Record Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Burke Walker Other Turnout Obam 52.8% 1,621 1,588 1,112 1,112 46.7% 91.0% 8.0% 1.0% 70% Romny 45.9% 1,411 1,383 968 968 40.6% 7.0% 93.0% 0.0% 70% Other 1.3% 39 39 27 27 1.1% 48.0% 48.0% 4.0% 70% DNV - - 275 11.6% 50.0% 45.5% 4.5% Margin Total 3,071 3,010 2,107 2,382 Share 51.6% 47.3% 1.0% 4.3% 77.6% Votes 1,230 1,127 25 103 Record 46.7% 52.2% 1.1% -5.5% Vote 1,112 1,242 27 -130 CVS-10% 50.2% 48.7% 1.1% 1.5% Vote 1,195 1,160 27 35

Burke Vote Share Sensitivity Analysis

 Burke Burke share of New voters (DNV) Burke Burke share of returning Obama voters Share of 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% Share of 87% 89% 91% 93% 95% Romney Burke Vote Share Romney Burke Vote Share 9.0% 52.0% 52.2% 52.5% 52.7% 52.9% 9.0% 50.6% 51.5% 52.5% 53.4% 54.3% 8.0% 51.6% 51.8% 52.1% 52.3% 52.5% 8.0% 50.2% 51.1% 52.1% 53.0% 53.9% 7.0% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.9% 52.1% 7.0% 49.8% 50.7% 51.6% 52.6% 53.5% 6.0% 50.8% 51.0% 51.2% 51.5% 51.7% 6.0% 49.4% 50.3% 51.2% 52.2% 53.1% 5.0% 50.4% 50.6% 50.8% 51.1% 51.3% 5.0% 49.0% 49.9% 50.8% 51.8% 52.7% Margin (000) Margin (000) 9.0% 119.6 130.6 141.6 152.6 163.7 9.0% 52.7 97.2 141.6 186.1 230.6 8.0% 100.3 111.3 122.3 133.3 144.3 8.0% 33.3 77.8 122.3 166.7 211.2 7.0% 80.9 91.9 102.9 113.9 124.9 7.0% 14.0 58.4 102.9 147.4 191.9 6.0% 61.5 72.6 83.6 94.6 105.6 6.0% -5.4 39.1 83.6 128.0 172.5 5.0% 42.2 53.2 64.2 75.2 86.2 5.0% -24.7 19.7 64.2 108.7 153.2

Cumulative Vote Shares -Final

 Counties Total Burke Walker Other Burke Walker Other Top 15 1,573 773 782 21.0 49.2% 49.7% 1.3% Other 57 809 343 456 6.4 42.4% 56.4% 0.8% Total 2,382 1,116 1,239 27.4 46.9% 52.0% 1.1%

Cumulative Vote Shares  at 10% of the vote

 Burke Walker Other Total Burke Walker Other Chg Top 15 864 688 19.5 1,573 54.9% 43.7% 1.2% -5.8% Other 57 339 460 6.4 809 41.9% 56.8% 0.8% 0.5% Total 1,203 1,148 25.8 2,382 50.5% 48.2% 1.1% -3.6%

Wisconsin 2014 Voter Turnout Model

 Registered 3005 Split Reg Turnout Votes Burke Walker Other Votes 2382 Dem 43.0% 1,292 77.0% 995 95% 4% 1% Other 1.15% Rep 41.0% 1,232 81.6% 1,006 7% 92% 1% Turnout 79.3% Ind 16.0% 481 79.3% 381 49% 49% 2% Total 100.0% 3,005 79.3% 2382 50.5% 48.4% 1.2%

Sensitivity Analysis

 Burke Dem Turnout % Ind 71.3% 73.3% 75.3% 77.3% 79.3% Burke 51.0% 47.8% 48.9% 49.9% 50.9% 52.0% 49.0% 47.5% 48.6% 49.6% 50.6% 51.6% 47.0% 47.2% 48.2% 49.3% 50.3% 51.3% Margin (000) 51.0% -75 -26 23 72 121 49.0% -91 -42 8 57 106 47.0% -106 -57 -8 41 91

Florida 2014 Governor

Scott (R) won by 65,000 votes (48.2-47.1%).

Crist won the CVS by 51.1-45.1%. He won the TVM by 49.7-45.6%.

VTM (000)

 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% 8,691 68.4% 5941 49.8% 46.0% 4.2%

TVM

 2012 Record Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Crist Scott Other Turnout Obama 49.9% 4,198 4,114 2,468 2,468 41.6% 91.0% 5.0% 4.0% 60% Romney 49.0% 4,124 4,042 2,425 2,425 40.8% 9.0% 88.9% 4.0% 60% Other 1.0% 88 86 52 52 0.87% 46.0% 46.0% 8.0% 60% DNV - - 996 16.8% 46.8% 45.2% 8.0% Margin TOTAL 8,410 8,242 4,945 5,941 Share 49.7% 45.6% 4.7% 4.2% Votes 2,954 2,707 280 247

 Obama Returning Voter Turnout Crist Crist share of returning Obama voters Romney 58% 59% 60% 61% 62% Share of 87% 89% 91% 93% 95% Turnout Crist Vote Share Romney Popular Vote Win Probability 58% 49.6% 49.9% 50.2% 50.5% 50.9% 11.0% 94.6% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 59% 49.4% 49.7% 50.0% 50.3% 50.6% 10.0% 85.9% 98.5% 99.9% 100.0% 100% 60% 49.1% 49.4% 49.7% 50.0% 50.3% 9.0% 70.6% 94.8% 99.7% 100.0% 100% 61% 48.9% 49.2% 49.5% 49.8% 50.1% 8.0% 50.3% 86.3% 98.5% 99.9% 100% 62% 48.6% 48.9% 49.2% 49.5% 49.8% 7.0% 30.0% 71.2% 95.0% 99.7% 100% Margin 58% 235.0 271.4 307.8 344.2 380.5 59% 204.5 240.8 277.2 313.6 350.0 60% 173.9 210.3 246.7 283.1 319.5 61% 143.4 179.7 216.1 252.5 288.9 62% 112.8 149.2 185.6 222.0 258.4

Illinois 2014 Governor

Rauner won the election by  50.2-46.3%.  But Quinn won the True Vote.

Quinn won the CVS by 55.2-41.8%. He won the TVM by 53.8-42.8%.

CVS - 10%

 County Quinn Raunier Grimm Quinn Raunier Grimm Change Top 15 1695 1030 73 61.5% 35.9% 2.6% 10.5% Other 87 252 535 40 33.5% 64.6% 1.9% 3.1% All 102 1,947 1,565 114 55.2% 41.8% 3.1% 8.8%

VTM

 Split Reg Turnout Votes 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% 5,716 63.4% 3626 50.3% 46.8% 2.9%

TVM

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Quinn Rauner Grimm Turnout Obama 57.6% 3,019 2,959 1,775 1,775 49.0% 90.0% 8.0% 2.0% 60% Romney 40.7% 2,135 2,092 1,255 1,255 34.6% 7.0% 91.0% 2.0% 60% Other 1.7% 89 88 53 53 1.5% 43.5% 43.5% 13.0% 60% DNV (new) - - 543 15.0% 45.0% 45.0% 10.0% Margin TOTAL 5,244 5,139 3,083 3,626 True Share 53.8% 42.8% 3.4% 11.0% 69.1% Vote (000) 1,952 1,552 122 400 Uncounted Total Quinn Rauner Grimm TVM 3626 1,952 1,552 121 Recorded 46.4% 50.3% 3.4% -3.9% Uncounted 108 81 23 3.6 Vote 1,681 1,823 122 -142 Cast 3734 2,033 1,575 125 CVS @ 10% 54.4% 42.5% 3.1% 11.9% Share 54.5% 42.2% 3.4% Vote 1,973 1,541 112 431

Kentucky 2015 Governor

Conway led in the pre-election polls.

Bevin won by 53.5-43.8%

KY registration is strongly Democratic 53.4D-38.8R.

Conway won by 49.3-47.0% assuming 40% Democratic turnout and 45.7% Republican.  Conway won the CVS by 49.1-46.8% and the TVM by 48.8-47.5%.

 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% 2,298 42.4% 974 49.3% 47% 3.7%

Massachusetts 2014 Governor

Baker (R) won by 48.5-46.6%.

Registered  Democrats far outnumbered Republicans (35-10%).

Coakley won by 55.7-39.5% assuming just 60% Democratic turnout vs. 86% Republican and an equal  47% split of Independents. She won the CVS by 56.0-40.6% and the TVM by 55.6-39.5%, a triple confirmation.

 Split Reg Turnout Votes 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% 3,250 66.1% 2149 55.7% 39.4% 4.9%

Maryland 2014 Governor

Hogan (R ) won by 51.0-47.2% in a strong  Democratic state

Brown won the CVS by 52.9-45.5%. He won the TVM by 56.4-41.9%.

 Split Reg Turnout Votes Brown Hogan Other 54.9% 1,644 54.0% 888 89% 9% 2% 25.7% 770 66.1% 509 5% 94% 1% 19.4% 581 57.9% 336 47% 51% 2% 2,995 57.9% 1,733 56.2% 42.1% 1.7%

Note the disparity between election day voting and early, absentee and provisional voting

 Votes Total Brown Share Hogan Share Other Share Early 305,594 164,219 53.74% 136,781 44.76% 4,594 1.50% Election Day 1,342,837 608,476 45.31% 710,854 52.94% 23,507 1.75% Abs/prov 84,746 46,195 54.51% 36,765 43.38% 1,786 2.11% Total Recorded 1,733,177 818,890 47.25% 884,400 51.03% 29,887 1.72% Early/abs/prov 390,340 210,414 53.91% 173,546 44.46% 6,380 1.63% CVS @ 10% 1,342,837 667,390 49.70% 652,619 48.60% 22,828 1.70% Adj. Total 1,733,177 877,804 50.65% 826,165 47.67% 29,208 1.69%

Michigan 2014 Governor

Snyder (R) won  by  51.0-46.8%. To match the recorded vote, 1) Snyder needed  19% of returning Obama voters, 2) Independents increased from 19% (registered) to 31% (Party-ID), and 3) Snyder won Indies by 64-33%. All implausible.

Schauer (D) won the true vote by 52.4-45.3%.

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Schauer Snyder Other Turnout Obama 54.1% 2,565 2,514 1,508 1,508 48.1% 91.0% 7.0% 2.0% 60% Romney 44.6% 2,115 2,073 1,244 1,244 39.6% 7.0% 91.0% 2.0% 60% Other 1.3% 60 59 35 35 1.1% 48.0% 48.0% 4.0% 60% Did Not Vote (new) - - 351 11.2% 48.0% 48.0% 4.0% Margin TOTAL 4,740 4,645 2,787 3,138 Share 52.4% 45.3% 2.2% 7.1% 66.2% Vote 1,645 1,422 70 223

 Exit Poll Party-ID Pct Schauer Snyder Other Democrat 39% 88.4% 9.6% 2% Republican 30% 7% 91.0% 2% Other 31% 33% 64.0% 3% Share 100% 46.8% 50.9% 2.3% Vote 1,469 1,597 72 Registration Pct Schauer Snyder Other Democrat 44% 92.1% 5.9% 2% Republican 37% 7% 91.0% 2% Other 19% 49% 48.0% 3% Vote 100% 52.4% 45.4% 2.2% 1,645 1,424 69

Vermont 2014 Governor

Shumlin (D) won a squeaker 46.4-45.3%. But it should not have been so close.

Registered Democrats led Republicans by 47-31%.

Shumlin won the True Vote by 54-40%

Model Assumptions

1. Shulin had just 86% of returning Obama voters and 4% of Romney voters.
2. Equal 60% turnout
3. Equal 42% share of Independents.

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Shumlin Milne Other Turnout Obama 66.1% 198 194 107 107 54.9% 86.0% 11.0% 3.0% 55% Romney 31.0% 93 91 59 59 30.4% 4.0% 93.0% 3.0% 65% Other 2.9% 9 8 6 6 2.8% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 65% DNV (new) - - 23 11.8% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% Margin TOTAL 299 293 171 194 Share 54.3% 40.2% 5.5% 14.1% Vote 105 78 11 27

Registration

 Split Voters Turnout Votes Shumlin Milne Other Dem 47.0% 152 59.9% 91 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% Rep 31.0% 100 59.9% 60 6.0% 89.0% 5.0% Ind 22.0% 71 59.9% 43 42.0% 42.0% 16.0% 324 59.9% 194 53.4% 39.2% 7.4%

2014 Fair Governor Elections (matched the True Vote)

CO:  Dem 49.1-46.2%

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Hickenlooper Beauprez Other Turnout Obama 51.5% 1,324 1,297 908 908 45.6% 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% 70% Romney 46.1% 1,186 1,162 814 814 40.8% 7.4% 87.6% 5.0% 70% Other 2.4% 61 60 42 42 2.1% 48.5% 48.5% 3.0% 70% DNV - - 229 11.5% 49.0% 48.0% 3.0% Margin TOTAL 2,571 2,520 1,764 1,993 Share 50.7% 44.6% 4.7% 6.1% 77.5% Vote 1,010 889 94 121

OR Dem 49.9-44.1%

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Kitzhaber Richardson Other Turnout Obama 54.2% 970 950 713 713 48.5% 87.0% 8.0% 5.0% 75% Romney 42.2% 755 740 555 555 37.8% 5.0% 90.0% 5.0% 75% Other 3.6% 64 63 47 47 3.2% 50.0% 45.0% 5.0% 75% DNV - - 154 10.5% 44.0% 46.0% 10.0% Margin TOTAL 1,789 1,753 1,315 1,469 Share 50.3% 44.2% 5.5% 6.2% Vote 739 649 81 91

PA Dem 54.9-45.1%

 2012 Recorded Votes Alive Return Votes Pct Wolf Corbett Turnout Obama 52.0% 2,992 2,932 1,613 1,613 46.5% 92.0% 8.0% 55% Romney 46.6% 2,681 2,628 1,445 1,445 41.7% 16.0% 84.0% 55% Other 1.4% 81 79 43 43 1.3% 55.0% 45.0% 55% DNV - - 369 10.6% 55.0% 45.0% Margin TOTAL 5,754 5,639 3,101 3,470 Share 56.0% 44.0% 11.9%

2014 Senate Exit Polls: Where are the Minority Vote shares?

 NC 2014 MoE 2783 respondents 2.41% Reported Hagan Tillis Haugh Whiite 74% 33% 62% 4% Black 21% 96% 3% 1% Hispanic 3% na na na Asian 1% na na na Other 1% na na na Share 95% 44.6% 46.5% 3.2% Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7% Adjusted Hagan Tillis Haugh Whiite 74% 33% 62% 4% Black 21% 96% 3% 1% Hispanic 3% 70% 20% 10% Asian 1% 70% 20% 10% Other 1% 70% 20% 10% True share 100% 48.1% 47.5% 3.7% Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%

 AK 2014 MoE 1826 respondents 2.98% Reported Begich Sullivan Other Whiite 78% 45% 49% 6% Black 3% na na na Hispanic 5% na na na Asian 6% na na na Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5% Share 86.0% 39.7% 41.3% 5.1% Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7% Adjusted Begich Sullivan Other Whiite 78% 45% 49% 6% Black 3% 94% 4% 2% Hispanic 5% 50% 47% 3% Asian 6% 50% 47% 3% Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5% Share 100% 48.0% 46.6% 5.5% Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 5.6%

 CO 2014 MoE 994 resp. 4.04% Reported Udall Gardner Other White 80% 45% 50% 5% Black 3% na na na Hispanic 13% na na na Asian 1% na na na Other 3% na na na Share 80% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5% Adjusted White 80% 45% 50% 5% Black 3% 95% 5% 0% Hispanic 13% 60% 40% 0% Asian 1% 60% 40% 0% Other 3% 60% 40% 0% Share 100% 49.1% 47.0% 4.0% Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%

Mathematicians

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

- G.F.  Webb of Vanderbilt University: Statistical study 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: anomalies in the 2012 primaries: 2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns

- Kathy Dopp is an expert on election auditing: Were the 2014 United States Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections Manipulated?

Open Source HUMBOLDT Software: http://www.esdi-humboldt.eu/open-source.html

Book: Matrix of Deceit