A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2 | This is a CVS analysis of the KY 2015 Governor election. Matt BEVIN (R) defeated Jack CONWAY (D) 52.5%-43.8%, an 84,000 vote margin. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

3 | Conway was leading in virtually all pre-election polls yet had fewer votes than the other Democrats on the ticket. He was leading by 3 to 5 points in almost every pre-election poll but lost to ‘Tea Party’ candidate Matt Bevin by 9 points. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

4 | Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org said that the higher Democratic vote totals in the down ballot races were a “significant anomaly”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

5 | https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/ky-2015-governor-cumulative-vote-shares/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

7 | The analysis indicates that the pre-election polls were likely correct. Conway probably won the election. CVS analysis of the 2014 FL, IL, WI, MA and MD Governor elections exhibited the same anomaly: a counter-intuitive rise in GOP cumulative vote shares in larger counties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

8 | But the KY analysis indicates that the anomaly occurred in many smaller counties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

10 | The objective is to view the effects of county/precinct size on the cumulative vote share trend. Since the largest counties are usually heavily Democratic, the consistent pattern of Republican Governor candidates gaining share from small to large precincts is counter-intuitive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

11 | On the other hand, there is virtually no change in vote shares in smaller, heavily GOP counties. This defies political reality and the Law of Large Numbers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

12 | I downloaded precinct data for 111of 120 Kentucky counties (11 were not avialble in Excel format). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

14 | The TOP 60 counties comprised 828,000 of the 974,000 total votes. Fifty-three (53) counties flipped votes from Conway to Bevin from the 25% CVS mark. If the process was random, we would expect a nearly even 30/30 split. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

15 | For example, in a county with 20,000 votes sorted by precinct size, the 25% CVS mark represents 5000 cumulative votes. Viewing any county precinct data tab will clarify the process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

16 | This sheet displays recorded votes for all 120 KY counties: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

17 | Thom Hartmann interview | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

18 | https://www.freespeech.org/video/election-fraud-exposed-kentucky | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

20 | Data source | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

21 | http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/57510/156550/Web01/en/summary.html# | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

23 | 2015KYGovCVS - Summary | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

24 | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jiO4RVEGxGQgTcFiwPqSjfqwNPdNIE5k0DrEEdlbhZI/edit#gid=1723955860&vpid=A1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

26 | I could not get 120 counties in one workbook, so I did 60 in each of two separate books | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

27 | 2015 KY Gov 1 - 60 county precinct sheet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

28 | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOSIu4Yz-pTtCskdwIbaxdDZUECK3ornjXJ8HUx4VuE/edit#gid=1527969543 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

29 | 2015 KY Gov 2 - 60 county precinct sheet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

30 | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ofJYjKvuklwhswptA5xd7sa__rtWRDK2_OiWgeSDN0Y/edit#gid=0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

32 | There is no longer any question but that CVS is a Smoking Gun | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

33 | GOP CVS increases as we go from smallest to largest precincts (use 10% and 25% of total vote as markers). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

34 | GOP shares decrease as we go from the largest to smallest counties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

36 | 3) calculate a rolling sum of cumulative votes for each candidate, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

37 | 4) calculate corresponding cumulative vote shares, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

38 | 5) create the cumulative vote share line graph, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

39 | 6) check for counter-intuitive divergence in vote shares from small to large precincts, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

40 | 7) calculate vote share and margin changes from the 25% mark to the final, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

41 | 8) calculate correlation between county vote size and candidate vote shares | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

43 | Calculating the True Vote | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

44 | The cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the baseline and the estimated True Vote. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

45 | We can adjust the results by viewing changes in vote share from smaller precincts in the 0-25% range if we assume that votes were flipped in the 0-25% interval. We calculate an estimated adjusted True Vote (TV) by extrapolation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

46 | The 25% mark is the baseline and the estimated True Vote. We can adjust the results by viewing changes in vote share from smaller precincts in the 0-25% range if we assume that votes were flipped in the 0-25% interval. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

47 | Let V25= the cumulative vote share at the 25% mark and VF = the final recorded share. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

48 | The adjusted vote share (TV) is given by the formula: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

49 | TV = (V25 – VF) * 1.33 + VF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

51 | For example, in Jefferson County, Conway had V25= 66.0% and VF= 58.8%, a 7.2% decline. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

52 | The adjusted True Vote estimate is: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

53 | TV = 68.4% = (66.0-58.8) * 1.33 + 58.8 = 9.6% + 58.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

54 | Therefore, Conway may have done even better than 66%. But to be conservative, we will use the 25% mark to estimate estimate of the True Vote. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

56 | Compare the recorded vote shares in the following county subgroups to the cumulative shares at the 25% mark. Conway leads Bevin in all groups from the Top 15 (53% of the total vote) to the Top 80 (92% of the total). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

57 | TOP 80 counties (895,000 votes – 92% of the total) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

58 | Conway led by 50.6-45.2% at the 10% mark. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

59 | Conway led by 48.6-47.3% at the 25% mark. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

60 | Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 80 by 51.9-44.4%. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

61 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

62 | TOP 60 counties (829,000 votes – 85% of the total) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

63 | Conway led by 51.4-44.3% at the 10% mark. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

64 | Conway led by 49.5-46.4% at the 25% mark. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

65 | Bevin won the recorded vote in the TOP 60 by 51.2-45.1%. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

66 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

67 | TOP 40 counties (735,000 votes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

68 | Conway led by 50.9-44.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 50.2-46.1%, a 10.1% reduction in Conway’s margin. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

69 | Assuming Conway had 113,000 (47%) of the remaining 239,000 votes in the other 80 counties. he would win by 50-46%. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

70 | TOP 25 counties (625,000 votes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

71 | Conway led by 51.9-43.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Bevin led 49.3-47.0%, a 10.3% reduction in Conway’s margin. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

73 | TOP 15 counties (518,000 votes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

74 | Conway led by 53.9-41.9% at the 25% mark. At the final, Conway led the Top 15 by 48.3-47.9%, a 11.7% reduction in Conway’s margin. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

76 | Given Conway’s 53.9% vote share in the Top 15 counties at the 25% mark, Bevin needed 305,000 (67%) of 455,000 votes in the other 105 counties to match his recorded vote margin (52.5-43.8%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

77 | He had 263,000 votes in the 105 counties. Given the anomalies in the TOP 15 counties, it is safe to assume that he had less than 263,000 votes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

78 | Sensitivity Analysis (15 scenarios) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

79 | Conway had 40% of the recorded vote in the Bottom 60 counties, but we do not have the CVS for the group. Since we have CVS estimates for the TOP 60, we calculate estimates of Conway’s total vote using a range of vote share estimates for the Bottom 60. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

80 | 1) extrapolation formula, 2) 10% CVS, 3) 25% CVS. He won 12 of the 15 scenarios. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

81 | Conway ties Bevin if he gets 40% (the break-even share) in the smallest 60 counties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

83 | Assuming Conway had… | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

84 | 41% of the Bottom 60 and | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

85 | – 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 49.9-46.1% (36,800 votes). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

86 | – 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.2-47.8% (4,700 votes). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

87 | 43% of the Bottom 60 and | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

88 | – 51.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 50.2-45.8% (42,600 votes). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

89 | – 49.5% of the TOP 60, he wins by 48.5-47.5% (10,500 votes). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

91 | Sensitivity Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

92 | Conway Formula 10%CVS 25%CVS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

93 | Top 60. 51.0% 51.5% 49.5% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

94 | Low 60.. Vote share | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

95 | 43% 49.8% 50.2% 48.5% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

96 | 41% 49.5% 49.9% 48.2% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

97 | 39% 49.2% 49.6% 47.9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

98 | 37% 48.9% 49.3% 47.6% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

99 | 35% 48.6% 49.0% 47.4% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||

100 | ...... Vote margin (000) |

Loading...