I AM REPOSTING MICHAEL GREEN'S INSIGHTFUL ANSWER TO RICHARD CHARNIN'S QUESTION: WHY DIDN'T CNN UPDATE ITS ELECTION WEBSITE TO INCLUDE THE 4.15 MILLION VOTES THAT CAME IN AFTER ROMNEY CONCEDED?

---

I am reposting Richard Charnin’s good analysis of the late-counted votes, but with enlarged fonts and separated line to make it readable.  Richard’s point is simple but should be made explicitly.  After Romney threw in the towel and there was no longer any active motivation to rig the remaining vote count, that remaining vote count gives us a better estimate and view of the actual voting distribution; this in turns gives us an excellent estimate of the extent of the routine fraud, notwithstanding the sampling bias (hah!) in the late-counted votes.  Richard asks why CNN has not updated its figures.  The better question is why CNN, the mainstream media generally, and the Obama DOJ does not leap to attention and bring the brigands to justice.  The answer is that the fraud that Richard and others have uncovered is and remains in the realm of state crimes, i.e., crimes done by elements of the rulings class with ties to the intelligence and finance community, often using their resources to organize lower level troops at the grounds level, that are too deep and long-standing to challenge without an overt war within the ruling class that risks involving the people directly, a contingency that all parties agree is to be avoided at all costs.  The problem is not and has never been that the upper levels of power of the "Democratic" party do not know what is happening; they know very well.  But their means of exercising their power, and exercise it they have been doing, avoid democratic process and participation at all costs.

Regards,  Michael Green

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?

Obama had 63.1% of the final 4.15 million votes. He had 52.9% of the full 131 million recorded.

What is the MoE for a 4 million polling sample? {Hint: just about zero.}

Blogger's clarification: MoE stands for Margin of Error.. Think about this!  At the end of a proof, the mathematician writes "Q.E.D."

From: Richard Charnin

To: ElectionIntegrity@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:03 PM

Subject: [ei] Re: The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?

Obama had 63.1% of the final 4.15 million votes. He had 52.9% of the full 131 million recorded.

What is the MoE for a 4 million polling sample?
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:34:38 PM UTC-5, Richard Charnin wrote:

The CNN 2008 Election site shows Obama winning by 66.88-58.43 million votes, an 8.55 million margin. The final recorded vote was 69.50-59.95, a 9.55 million margin, exactly 1.0 million higher. Why has CNN not updated the 2008 Election website to include the final 4.15 million votes?

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:12:28 PM UTC-5, Richard Charnin wrote:

The Late Recorded Votes: A confirmation of the True Vote?

http://richardcharnin. wordpress.com/2012/11/09/the- late-recorded-votes-a- confirmation-of-the-true-vote/

Richard Charnin

Nov. 10, 2012

In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, the late votes recorded after Election Day showed a dramatic increase in Democratic vote shares. 

2000- 102.6 million votes recorded on Election Day. Gore led 48.3-48.1%. 

Gore had 55.6% of the 2.7 million late votes.

2004- 116.7 million votes recorded on Election Day. Bush led 51.6-48.3%. 

Kerry had 54.2% of the 4.8 million late 2-party votes.

2008- 121 million votes recorded on Election Day. Obama led 52.3-46.3%. 

Obama won the 10.2 million late votes by 59.2-37.5%.

http://uselectionatlas. org/RESULTS/data.php?year= 2012&datatype=national& amp;def=1&f=0&off=0& amp;elect=0">Dave Leip’s US Election Atlas

provides updated state votes which are included in the https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheet/ccc?key= 0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRN DlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29">2012 Forecasting model.

I am calculating the incremental changes in the vote count on a  daily basis. Check the updates right here.

Nov.8 - Obama led by 50.34-48.07% (117.45 million recorded votes)

Nov.9 - he led by 50.43-47.97% (119.58 million recorded)

Nov.10- he led by 50.51-47.87% (122.20 million recorded)

Obama leads by 54.65-42.96% in the 4.75 million late votes.

The True Vote Model indicated that he had an approximate 55% True Vote. A coincidence? 

The late votes can be viewed as a proxy for the unadjusted exit polls -  a very big exit poll with millions of respondents who told the pollster exactly how they voted. Of course, we won't see the unadjusted exit polls until years later. And 19 states were not even exit polled this time. All we have is the National Exit Pol which is always forced to match the recorded vote. It shows that Obama was a 50-48% winner. But all the demographic crosstabs were forced to conform to the recorded vote. I included them in the 2012 Presidential True Vote /Election Fraud Forecast Model in which I calculated total vote shares.

As is the case in every presidential election since 1988, the Democrat Obama did much better than the recorded vote. If they are to be believed, the Late Votes are  another confirmation of systematic election fraud. Let’s see what happens as the recorded votes continue to come in.

Why would the late votes always show an increase in the Democratic vote share?

- Could it be that since the winner has been decided, there is no longer an incentive on the part of the perennial vote thieves to continue switching late votes? Plausible.

- Could it be that the late votes are paper ballots (provisionals, absentees) and not from DREs? Absolutely. 

- Could it be that the late votes are coming in from Democratic strongholds? Maybe some, but surely not all.

You decide.

U.S. ELECTIONS ARE RECORDED ON HACKABLE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES AND RECORDED BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, WHILE THE CORPORATE-OWNED "MAINSTREAM" MEDIA MAKE UP STORIES TO EXPLAIN UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES ...EVEN THOUGH THESE OUTCOMES ARE "STATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" IN AN UNRIGGED ELECTION.

---

Bob Fitrakis

Wisconsin: None dare call it vote rigging
June 14, 2012

If vote-rigging prospers, none may call it vote-rigging. It simply becomes the new norm. Once again, the universal laws of statistics apply only outside U.S. borders. The recall vote in Wisconsin produced another significant 7% discrepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and the so-called "recorded vote." In actual social science, this level of discrepancy, with the results being so far outside the expected margin of error would not be accepted.

When I took Ph.D. statistics to secure my doctorate in political science, we were taught to work through the rubric, sometime referred to as HISMISTER. The "H" stood for an explanation of the discrepancy rooted in some historical intervention, such as one of the candidates being caught in a public restroom with his pants down and a "wide stance" soliciting an undercover cop. The "I" that came next suggested we should check our instrumentation, that is, are the devices adequately reporting the data?

Here's where U.S. elections become laughable. A couple of private companies, count our votes with secret proprietary hardware and software, the most notable being ES&S. Every standard of election transparency is routinely violated in the U.S. electronic version of faith-based voting. How the corporate-dominated media deals with the issue is by "adjusting the exit polls." They simply assume the recorded vote on easily hacked and programmed private machines are correct and that the international gold standard for detecting election fraud – exit polls – must be wrong.

They are not going to go through the rest of the acronym and check to see if the Sample makes sense, that the right Measurements are being taken, or whether or not there's been a breakdown in Implementing the exit polling. They won't check to see if the representative Size of the polling numbers are accurate, or if there are problems with the pollster's Technique, or if there was human Error, or if there's just bad Recording going on.

Of course, the machines could be recording wrong because they are programmed for an incorrect outcome. The easiest people to convince regarding the absurdity of electronic voting with private proprietary hardware and software are the computer programmers across the political spectrum. Statisticians and mathematicians also readily comprehend the obvious nature of rigged elections.

One of my favorite mathematicians is Richard Charnin, who on his website using readily available public information, calculates the odds of the so-called ‘red shift" occurring from the 1988 to 2008 presidential elections. The red shift refers to the overwhelming pick up of votes by the Republican Party in recorded votes over what actual voters report to exit pollsters.

In Charnin's analysis of exit poll data, we can say with a 95% confidence level – that means in 95 out of 100 elections – that the exit polls will fall within a statistically predictable margin of error. Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 state elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 state presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

What is the probability of this happening?

"One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion," said Charnin.

More proof of Republican operatives and sympathizers is found in the fact that 132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

Say you have a fair coin to flip. We would expect that if we flip that coin there would be an even split between heads and tails – or in this case, Republicans and Democrats. Election results falling outside the margin of error should be equally split between both parties. Yet, only five times, less than expected, did the extra votes fall in the direction of the Democratic Party.

So what are the odds? According to Charnin, of 132 out of 300 state presidential elections exceeding the margin of error in the direction of the Republicans – one in 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

The corporate-owned media does not want to mention that the problems with the exit polls began with the ascendancy of the former CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush to the presidency in 1988. It is also that year when the non-transparent push-and-pray voting machines were introduced in the New Hampshire primary by Bush ally John Sununu. Bush, who rigged elections for the CIA throughout the Third World did unexpectedly well where the voting machines were brought in.

In any other election outside the U.S., the U.S. State Department would condemn the use of the these highly riggable machines based on the discrepancy in the exit polls. It's predictable what would happen if an anti-U.S. KGB agent in some former Soviet Central Asian republic picked up an unexplained 5% of the votes at odds with the exit polls. A new election would be called for, as it was in the Ukraine in 2004. We would not have accepted the reported vote from the corrupt intelligence officer.

The CIA Director's son wins with laughable exit poll discrepancies in 2000 and 2004 and the mainstream media sees no evil. The media's perspective is to discredit the exit polls, which they sponsor, and call any who point to the polls "conspiracy theorists."

In 2004, 22 states had a red shift to the CIA Director's son, George W. Bush. Usually such improbably results are signs of a Banana Republic. Now we have a too-close-to-call neck and neck recall race in Wisconsin that show an obvious red shift for a right-wing red governor. Nobody wants to look at the non-transparent black box machines. Electronic election rigging has prospered. Long live the "adjusted" vote totals.

--
Originally published by The Free Press, http://freepress.org.

Since 2004, the Presidential Election Exit Polls have been readjusted at the end of day, forcing them to match the "official" results. However, these polls also gathered demographic information (in order to remain statistically "fair and balanced"). But these demographic numbers are unavoidably readjusted in the end-of-the-day forcing process -- leading to some stunning inferences. Do you agree with them?

---

Proof that Obama Won by Much More than 9.5 Million Recorded Votes

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
October 7, 2010

Go here for the True Vote Analysis:
http://richardcharnin.com/ObamaProof.htm

---

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59 million.

It is a standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force the final exit poll to match the recorded vote.
Do you agree that the Final 2004 National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote?
Yes.

Bush had 50.46 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5 million Bush voters died and 2 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 46 million returning Bush voters.
Do you agree?
Yes.

But the Final 2004 NEP indicates that 52.6 million Bush voters returned in 2004.
That means there were 6.6 million phantom returning Bush voters. That is an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters.
Do you agree?
Yes.

Blogger's note: The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide "information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections." See Wikipedia.

Did you ever hear or read about this anomaly in the mainstream media?
No.

OK, now let’s move on to 2008. Obama won by 9.5 million recorded votes.

Do you agree that the Final 2008 NEP was forced to match the recorded vote?
Yes.

Then you must believe the Final NEP Obama and McCain shares of returning and new voters.
Yes.

The Final indicates that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. But that is not plausible (Bush had a 22% approval rating on Election Day 2008).
Do you agree?
Yes, I agree that 12 million is not plausible - but it is possible.

The Final 2008 NEP indicates a 103% turnout of living 2004 Bush voters.
That is impossible, right?
Yes.

Therefore the Final 2008 NEP returning Bush 46% weighting must be incorrect, right?
Yes.

The Final 2008 NEP also indicates 5.25 million returning third-party voters (4% of the electorate). But there were only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004.
Therefore the Final 2008 NEP returning third-party 5% weighting must be incorrect, right?
Yes.

Correcting to feasible returning voter percentage weights should show that Obama won by more than 9.5 million votes, right?
Yes.

Ok, let’s assume that in 2008, Bush, Kerry and third-party voters turned out in equal proportion to their 2004 recorded vote. That is a plausible if there was zero fraud in 2004 (i.e. the recorded vote was equal to the True Vote).
Do you agree?
Yes.

Assuming proportional returning voter turnout, Obama won by 14.7 million votes.

But virtually all election analysts have concluded that the 2004 election was stolen. Kerry won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-47%.

If Kerry won the election by 52-47%, then Obama won by 22 million votes. But the True Vote Model indicates that Kerry won by 53.5-45.1%, a 10.5 million vote margin.

If Kerry won by 53.5 - 45.1%, then Obama won the True Vote by 22.9 million.

The True Vote calculations used the same Final 2008 National Exit Poll vote shares that were forced to match the recorded vote. So there can be no argument there.

The 103% turnout of living 2004 Bush voters as indicated in the Final 2008 NEP was impossible. So there can be no argument there.

The 5.25 million returning 2004 third-party voters as indicated in the Final 2008 NEP was impossible. So there can be no argument there.

Impossible 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%) returning voter turnout ratios were replaced by feasible 98% and 97% turnout. So there can be no argument there.

Q.E.D.