2014 Gov Election Fraud Model
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
Related Post: 2014 Governor Election Sensitivity Analysis: Voter Registration and Turnout
2
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/2014-governor-election-sensitivity-analysis-voter-registration-and-turnout/
3
4
Six Governor Elections: Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Fraud
5
6
TVM/CVS Posts and precinct data links
7
8
This is a summary spreadsheet analysis of recent Governor elections in KY, MA, MD, IL, FL, WI using Cumulative Vote Shares.
9
The focus is on the largest counties in each election. Unlike the smaller counties, they were the ones in which the vote share anomalies indicated fraudulent elections.
10
The True Vote is estimated to be the sum of the 10% cumulative total in the TOP counties + the final vote in the other counties.
11
12
Cumulative Vote Shares (CVS)
13
14
The CVS method is focused on the largest (TOP) counties. Unlike the smaller counties, vote share anomalies in the biggest counties were clear indicators of fraud.
15
The True Vote is estimated to be the sum of the 10% cumulative total in the TOP counties + the final vote in the other counties.
16
In prior analysis, cumulative vote shares in the six states were calculated from the 25% mark for ALL counties.
17
The average 40.8% Democratic share declined to 38.8% in the Other counties. Click the ‘CVS 25%’ tab.
18
19
We compare the cumulative vote shares of the TOP counties at the 10% mark to the final result.
20
The 10% mark is a reasonable estimate of the True Vote as it includes a sufficiently large number of votes in the TOP (largest) counties for the cumulative shares to reach a “steady state”.
21
We would expect minimal change in the Democratic and Republican cumulative shares after the 10% mark.
22
But the sharp divergence favoring the GOP is counter-intuitive and violates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).
23
24
….. True 10% CVS….. Final Share
25
Group Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other
26
TOP… 57.3 39.6 3.1 …. 50.7 46.6 2.7
27
Other,. 40.1 56.3 3.6 …. 40.1 56.3 3.3
28
Total 51.1 45.6 3.3 …. 46.9 50.1 3.0
29
30
10% Dem GOP Final Dem GOP
31
KY 48.2-47.7 43.8-52.5
32
IL 53.7-43.2 46.4-50.3
33
FL 50.2-46.0 47.6-48.6
34
WI 50.5-48.2 46.7-52.2
35
MD 49.7-48.6 47.2-51.0
36
MA 54.0-40.8 47.4-49.3
37
All 51.1- 45.6 46.9- 50.0
38
39
Note the following Democratic share declines from the 10% mark in the largest counties:
40
KY – 15 of 15 counties (8.2% decline)
41
MA – 10 of 14 townships (6.6%)
42
MD – 10 of 10 (3.8%)
43
IL – 13 of 15 (9.5%)
44
FL – 9 of 10 (4.8%)
45
WI – 10 of 15 (5.5%)
46
47
The three methods yield similar results.
48
Example: Florida
49
Method… Crist(D) Scott(R) Other
50
Recorded..47.6…. 48.6… 3.8
51
52
CVS…….. 50.2…. 46.0… 3.8
53
True Vote. 49.7…. 46.6… 3.8
54
Exit Poll.. 49.4…. 46.3… 3.3
55
56
Florida CVS analysis
57
Recorded Vote
58
Group….Crist.. Scott..Wyllie
59
TOP 10 53.3… 43.3… 3.4
60
Other….. 40.2… 55.5… 4.3
61
Total….. 47.6… 48.6… 3.8
62
63
CVS 10% mark
64
Group….Crist.. Scott..Wyllie
65
TOP 10 58.1… 38.5… 3.4 (CVS at 10%)
66
Other .. 40.2… 55.5… 4.3 (final recorded share)
67
Total….. 50.2… 46.0… 3.8
68
69
True Vote Model (TVM)
70
71
In the TVM analysis, the recorded and estimated True 2012 presidential vote share is the base for calculating a) the 2014 Governor True Vote and b) a match to the bogus the recorded vote.
72
The sensitivity analysis shows vote shares over a range of assumptions and returning voters.
73
74
Florida 2014 Recorded Vote match
75
2012…..Pct….Crist Scott Other
76
Obama…41.5….. 90…. 7…. 3
77
Romney. 40.9…… 4… 92…. 4
78
Other…… 0.8 …..49… 47…. 4
79
New…….16.8…. 49… 46…. 5
80
Share 100 47.6 48.6 3.8
81
Vote 5940 2795 2861 284
82
83
Florida True Vote
84
2012…. .Pct….Crist Scott Other
85
Obama… 41.5…. 91… 6…. 3
86
Romney. 40.9….. 8.. 88…. 4
87
Other…… 0.8…. 49.. 47…. 4
88
New…….16.8…. 49.. 46…. 5
89
Share 100 49.7 46.6 3.8
90
Vote 5940 2952 2766 223
91
92
Exit Poll
93
94
Just like all demographics/crosstabs, the published Party-ID demographic mix was adjusted to match the recorded vote in all elections.
95
In Florida, the 31R-35D-34I Party-ID mix was forced to conform to the recorded vote: Scott 48.2-Crist 47.1% (66,000 margin). Historically, the Party-ID mix was 39D-35R-26I.
96
Assuming a more realistic 34D-33R-33I mix, Crist is the winner by 49.4-46.3% (188,000 votes) with no change to the vote shares.
97
98
Adjusted Final
99
(forced to match the recorded vote)
100
PARTY-ID…….Pct Crist Scott Other
Loading...
Main menu