MATHEMATICIAN RICHARD CHARNIN TAKES A FINAL LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THE WISCONSIN RECALL ELECTION, THE FORCING OF THE EXIT POLLS TO MATCH THE "OFFICIAL" VOTE COUNT, THE FAILURE OF THE MEDIA TO REVEAL THE ACTUAL EXIT POLL RESULTS, AND PREDICTION OF THE WINNER BY HIS TRUE VOTE MODEL. HE ALSO REVEALS THE "STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" RESULTS (84% OF THEM FAVORING REPUBLICANS) OF THE "OFFICIAL" OUTCOMES OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FROM 1988 TO 2008 WHEN COMPARED WITH THE *UN*ADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS.

---

Original here

---

Wisconsin Recall: The adjusted Final Exit Poll was forced to match an unlikely recorded vote

Wisconsin Recall: The adjusted Final Exit Poll was forced to match an unlikely recorded vote

Richard Charnin

June 6, 2012
Updated: June 20

The media and the exit pollsters have done it again.

Before the first votes were posted, the media reported that based on the exit polls, the election was “too close to call”. But Walker won by 53.2-46.3%, a 173,000 vote margin. Assuming “too close to call” meant that the exit poll indicated a 50/50 split, then there was a significant 7% discrepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and the recorded vote. I believe that Barrett was actually leading the exit polls. Of course, we will never know until the unadjusted exit polls are released. In any case, what caused the unknown red shift?

According to the Wisconsin True Vote Model , Barrett was a likely 54-46% winner. Barrett should have won easily – assuming the caveat of a fair election. But the election was very likely stolen.

Forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote

The Final Wisconsin adjusted exit poll (2547 respondents) indicated that Walker had 53.0% (see the NY Times link below). The 0.2% difference between the Final and the recorded vote was the result of the standard policy of forcing the unadjusted poll to match the vote.

The pollsters claim that the exit poll had a 4.0% margin of error. But they can’t mean the final, adjusted poll because it is always forced to match the recorded vote within 0.5%.

Why did the media not provide the actual unadjusted exit poll demographics? Was it because they knew that they would have to adjust all the crosstabs to match a rigged recorded vote – and did not want the public to view the “adjustments”?

The Fraud Factor

And as is always the case, there was no mention of the fraud factor in the mainstream media. There never is. To the exit pollsters and the media, there is no such thing as election fraud.

The GOP employs overt voter disenfranchisement in plain sight by robocalling voters with false information and having election workers discourage voters from using paper ballots and vote on unverifiable touchscreen DREs. But we are supposed to believe that right-wing voting machine manufacturers would not stoop so low as to write malicious code to covertly flip votes in cyberspace.

In 2010, Walker “won” by 52.2-46.6%, supposedly due to low-Democratic turnout.
Was the election a prologue of the recall?

In the recall, Democrats turned out in droves, they wanted Walker gone. There was no way that the unpopular Governor would match, much less exceed, his 2010 vote – if the votes were counted as cast. But that is a quaint notion considering the overwhelming statistical evidence of systemic election fraud since 1988.

Implausible 2008 returning voters and 2012 vote shares

Obama had a 56.2% recorded share in Wisconsin and 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll (2.4% margin of error). Assuming Obama had a 60% True Vote share, then to match the recall vote, Walker needed the following:
1) 81% of McCain and 71% of Obama voters turned out.
2) He needed to win 25% of Obama and 95% of McCain voters.
3) He needed 46% of new voters who did not vote in 2010. The 2012 exit poll indicates he had 45% and that new voters comprised 13% of the total vote.

In order to win by his recorded vote, Walker needed a 10% advantage in returning 2008 voters and a 20% advantage in net defections. That is highly implausible.

Exit poll oddities

1) A full 5% of voters were not white or black. But their vote is n/a.
2) Philosophy: 13% of liberals voted for Walker?
3) Party ID: 34% Democrat/ 35% Republican in a progressive state?
4) Labor: Just 62% voted for Barrett?
5) Obama preferred by 51-44%, yet Barrett lost the recall by 53.2-46.3%?
6) Barrett only got 81% of would-be Obama voters?
7)Turnout:47% of recall were returning Walker 2010 and 34% Barrett? That’s a 13% difference. In 2010 Walker “won” by 52.2-46.6%.
8) Urban vote: Barrett had just 62% in big cities?

The Ultimate Smoking Gun:300 state presidential exit polls (1988-2008)

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, there were 300 state exit polls, of which 252 red-shifted from the poll to the vote in favor of the Republican and 48 to the Democrat. Assuming zero fraud, approximately 150 would be expected for each. The probability P that 252 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = 1.3E-34 = Binomdist(62,75,.5,false)^4
P = 1 in 8 billion trillion trillion

The margin of error (MoE) was exceeded in 137 of 300 state exit polls (only 15 would be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is:
P = 7E-80 = Poisson (137, .05*300, false)
P = 1 in 1 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

Of the 137 exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded, 134 moved in favor of the Republicans (only 8 would be expected). Three favored the Democrat. The probability P that 134 out of 300 would favor the Republican is:
P= 5E-115 = Poisson (134, .025*300, false)
P= 1 in 2 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion

In the Wisconsin recall Exit Poll notes (following the crosstabs), the pollsters indicate there were 2547 exit poll respondents and that the margin of error (MoE) was +/-4%. Presumably, this includes a 30% cluster factor. But the MoE seems too high, considering the number of respondents.

The theoretical MoE is given by the simple formula: MoE =.98/sqrt(n), where n is the number of respondents. For the recall: MoE = 2.0% = .98/sqrt(2547). It is 2.6% after adding the 30% cluster effect.

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote to within 0.50%. Yet the pollsters claim that the MoE is 4.0%. Why do the pollsters even bother to mention the MoE? It has no meaning since the exit poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote anyway.

If we had unadjusted exit poll data, the margin of error would be applied to determine the interval where the vote share would fall 95% of the time. This is why unadjusted exit polls are necessary. The standard practice of forcing the exit poll to match the recorded vote implicitly assumes zero fraud, i.e. the recorded vote is identical to the True Vote. It never is.

The conventional wisdom is very conventional – and very misleading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/wisconsin-recall-vote_n_1572662.html

The NY Times Election site has the FINAL, adjusted exit poll crosstabs.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/05/us/politics/wisconsin-recall-exit-polls.html

About Richard Charnin
In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.
View all posts by Richard Charnin

WISCONSIN'S RECALLED GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER ATTRIBUTED HIS VICTORY TO VOTERS PREFERING "LEADERS WHO STAND UP AND MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS." (LIKE CUTTING THEIR SALARIES AND BENEFITS AND FIRING THEIR CHILDREN'S TEACHERS?) EVEN MORE IRONIC, WALKER'S OPPONENT BARRETT CONCEDED WITH THE COMMENT "WE HAVE SEEN THIS DEMOCRACY COME ALIVE." (LIKE DEMOCRACY IS YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO THE POLLS THINKING YOU ARE "THROWING THE BUM OUT" AND THEN ACCEPTING THAT YOUR VOTE MAY HAVE BEEN MISCOUNTED?) THERE IS VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE THAT U.S. ELECTIONS ARE ROUTINELY RIGGED ...THAT IS IF YOU HAVE OTHER SOURCES OF NEWS THAN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. YET THIS TIME EVEN LIBERAL NEWS SOURCES LIKE DEMOCRACY NOW ATTRIBUTE WALKER'S UNEXPECTED WIN TO HIS SPENDING 7 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS HIS OPPONENT. NOW LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... IF I'M RECALLING A GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE IS SAVAGING MY STANDARD OF LIVING, AM I GOING TO BE SO DAZZLED BY HIS EXPENSIVE ATTACK ADS THAT I DECIDE TO KEEP HIM? TO ME WE HAVE JUST SEEN OUR DEMOCRACY *DIE*. DON'T THINK SO? READ BELOW AND WEEP.

---

← Conspiracy Theories and Mathematical Probabilities                                    Go here for original

---

Wisconsin Recall: The adjusted Final Exit Poll was forced to match an unlikely recorded vote

Richard Charnin |

June 6, 2012

The media and the exit pollsters have done it again.

Before the first votes were posted, the media reported that based on the exit polls, the election was “too close to call”. But Walker won by a solid 7% margin and 173,000 votes. Why the big red shift?

Why did the media not provide the actual unadjusted exit poll data (the “crosstabs”)? Was it because they knew that they would have to adjust the poll to match a bogus recorded vote and did not want the public to view the impossible “adjustments”?

The solid 53.2-46.3% Walker win was more than implausible since voter turnout exceeded that of the 2010 election. Walker “won” the recorded vote 52.2-46.6% in a supposed low-turnout election. But who turned out in droves in 2012? Democrats and independents who wanted Walker out. The grossly unpopular Walker could not have done better than he did in 2010 – only worse.

And as is always the case, there was no mention of the fraud factor in the mainstream media. There never is. To the exit pollsters and the media, there is no such thing as election fraud.

The GOP employs overt voter disenfranchisement in plain sight by robocalls, election workers discouraging voters from using paper ballots, etc. But we are supposed to believe that they would not covertly program the voting machines to flip votes from Barrett to Walker in cyberspace? And even if the machines are manufactured and programmed by right-wing organizations using unverifiable code.

The conventional wisdom is very conventional – and very misleading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/wisconsin-recall-vote_n_1572662.html

The NY Times Election site has the FINAL, adjusted exit poll crosstabs:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/05/us/politics/wisconsin-recall-exit-polls.html

Here are just a few exit poll oddities:

1) A full 5% of voters were not white or black. But their vote is n/a.

2) Philosophy: 13% of liberals voted for Walker?

3) Party ID: 34% Democrat/ 35% Republican in a progressive state?

4) Labor: Just 62% voted for Barrett?

5) Obama preferred by 51-44%, yet Barrett lost the recall by 53.2-46.3%?

6) Barrett only got 81% of would-be Obama voters?

7) 47% voted for Walker in 2010 and just 34% for Barrett?

Walker only “won” by 52.2-46.6% in 2010.

8) Urban vote: Barrett gets just 62% in the big cities?

If we assume an equal 75% Obama and McCain voter turnout in the recall, a 50/50 split in new and returning third party voters, then in order to match the recorded vote, Walker needed 28% of returning Obama voters while Barrett had just 5% of returning McCain voters. That is a very implausible net 23% defection of Obama voters.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDRwcWRPTUZoZk53YUlxOEVMT0FnX3c#gid=32

The True Vote Model indicates that Barrett should have won easily – assuming the caveat of a fair election. But the election was stolen. Its still the same old story – a case of do or die.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/2750/

---

About Richard Charnin

In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.

View all posts by Richard Charnin »

EXPERTS ASSESS POLITICAL CHANGE IN EUROPE IN THE WAKE OF RECENT ELECTIONS: POSSIBLY BIG TIME IN GREECE (OUT OF THE ERUOZONE); FRANCE POSSIBLY "THE MOUSE THAT ROARED" (HOLLANDE DEEMED NOT VERY LIKELY TO STAND UP TO MERKEL ON THE AUSTERITY ISSUE)

---

  theREALnews                                                                               Permalink

May 7, 2012

People of Greece Shake Europe Costas Lapavitsas:

The growing strength of the left shows the Greek people are getting ready to leave the Eurozone

Bio 

Costas Lapavitsas is a professor in economics at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. He teaches the political economy of finance, and he's a regular columnist for The Guardian.

May 7, 2012

Will New French President Challenge Germany?

Mark Kesselman: The big question is whether Mr. Hollande will be a lion or the mouse that roared

Bio

 Mark Kesselman is professor emeritus of Political Science at Columbia University, where he taught for over 40 years. His teaching and research centered on the political economy of advanced capitalism and globalization, with a particular focus on labor unions and social movements in France and the United States. He has published scholarly books, textbooks, and articles on these topics, including "European Politics in Transition," "The Politics of Power: A Critical Introduction to American Politics, and "Introduction to Comparative Poltics."

THE PEOPLE WHO COUNT THE VOTES IN WISCONSIN...

Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:06 PM EDT

Why Prosser needed EXACTLY +7500 votes....

by Cieran

In WI, a recount at state-expense is triggered if an election is within .5% if the candidate requests it, and we have a fully verifiable paper trail to audit election results. That means in this election with approximately 740k for Kloppenburg and 739k for Prosser, the vote gets recounted at state-expense if the election is within ~7400 votes.

So the last 2 days the WI-GOP has been scrambling trying to figure out how they can still get Prosser into office. What was the result of their brain-storming? Add a few extra votes in a friendly area (Waukesha), and call it a clerical error. But in order to steal the election, they NEED to be able to keep a recount from occurring, because a recount would expose their attempted fraud to the light of day.

So they couldn't just give Prosser a couple hundred to put him barely in the lead by 40. They had to give him more than 7500 in order to get above the threshold for a free recount, so that the only way for a recount to happen would be if Kloppenburg ponies up the money for a state-wide recount, which could be expensive. Granted, all of us in WI would be happy to donate to a potential recount effort if it gets to that point, but the resolve of the Kloppenburg camp remains to be seen.

When the Republicans have declared victory starting tomorrow, they will use the full power of their media empire to pressure KloJo to concede instead of paying for a recount. They'll say she's a sore loser if she pushes for a recount outside of the .5% margin. They'll say the gap is so wide that a recount couldn't possibly swing enough votes her way, so she shouldn't waste the time of election workers. They'll say she's just further trying to divide the people of WI. They will do EVERYTHING they can to make sure NO ONE checks the paper trail. Because the paper trail will be the nail in their coffin.

We must not let them succeed in this attempted fraud.

It is NOT a coincidence that Prosser didn't get +300 votes or +1000, it had to be +7500 or more in order for the fraud to work. +7400 just wouldn't have been enough.

RECOUNT WISCONSIN!

UPDATE:

Why did the GOP aim for the .5% mark?

In WI we know that an election that is within 200ish votes deserves to have a careful examination of every ballot - whichever side is ahead. We have a sense of fairness here. While technically the losing side would have to request a recount if under .5%, it's understood that no one would be accusing said candidate of having sour grapes or being a sore loser if they requested it in an election determined by ~200 votes out of 1.5 million.

But it's different when there's a 7500 vote difference, it breaks that psychological barrier that it's not close enough for a critical re-examination as the likelihood of overcoming such a deficit would be unlikely. When the candidate has to pony up their own cash because the state considers a recount of that wide of a margin to be frivolous, public opinion changes.

And you KNOW Fox News and Rush will be hammering home this meme: She's pursuing a frivolous recount and dividing the state, sour grapes, sore loser, don't be Al Gore, etc etc. The GOP is acutely aware of this psychological barrier, which is why they went for +7500 instead of +7400.

Great new diary about the criminal clerk from Walkersha county.

And it turns out she's lying when she says Microsoft Access didn't save when she closed the file. See this diary for more info

Updated by Cieran at Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:10 PM PDT

Statement from JoAnne Kloppenburg campaign manager Melissa Mulliken:

"Wisconsin voters as well as the Kloppenburg for Justice Campaign deserve a full explanation of how and why these 14,000 votes from an entire City were missed. To that end, we will be filing open records requests for all relevant documentation related to the reporting of election results in Waukesha County, as well as to the discovery and reporting of the errors announced by the County. We are confident that election officials in Waukesha County will fulfill these requests as quickly as possible so that both our campaign and the people of Wisconsin can fully understand what happened and why. Just as Assistant Attorney General Kloppenburg has run to restore confidence in the court, Wisconsin residents also deserve to have full confidence in election results."

Updated by Cieran at Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 07:41 PM PDT

Statement from state Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D):

"It stretches the bounds of credibility to think that over 14,300 votes were somehow 'overlooked' until two days after the election.

Based on the partisan, political history of Ms. Nickolaus and the serious concerns that have been raised, by other Waukesha County officials, about the quality of her election administration and the possibility for fraud, an independent investigation of her conduct and the county's election results is not just warranted but urgently demanded to protect the integrity of our electoral system in Wisconsin."

The group Citizen Action of Wisconsin is calling for an immediate federal investigation and impoundment of all computer equipment, ballots, and other relevant evidence needed to verify a fair vote count in Waukesha County.

“Given the shocking character of this afternoon’s revelations, and its tremendous importance for the perceived integrity of Wisconsin’s governmental institutions, it is absolutely essential that there be a full investigation which is so beyond reproach that all Wisconsin citizens can have faith in the validity of the outcome,” said Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action. “In the current political climate in Wisconsin, only an investigation by a U.S. Attorney can be seen by all citizens of the state as independent and above politics."