Votes Must Count
http://www.dailykos.com/user/Votes Must Count/rss/index.xml
News Community ActionCopyright 2005 - Steal what you wantSat, 30 May 2015 18:50:35 UTCSat, 30 May 2015 18:50:35 UTCDaily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos)Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos)Obama's recent surge in the polls
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/26/1136783/-Obama-s-recent-surge-in-the-polls
<p><br />
9/26/ 2012 Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Simulation Model:Obama 342 EV; 100% Win Probability</p>
<p>The model assumes that the election is held today.<br />
2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model</p>
<p><a href="http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/926-2012-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-simulation-modelobama-342-ev-100-win-probability/">http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/...</a></p>
<p>Forecast Summary</p>
<p>Obama has extended his expected Electoral Vote by gaining the lead in the latest North Carolina and Iowa polls. He has a 49-44% lead in the latest state polls with 342 expected electoral votes based on the state win probabilities. He is leading the Real Clear Politics National Average by nearly 4%. If the election were held today, the Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation indicates that he would have a 100% probability of winning the election (he won all 500 election simulation trials). But there are six weeks to so. Will there be an October surprise?</p>
<p>Approximately 7% of voters are undecided and may hold the key to the election. I suspect they are mostly Democrats disillusioned with Obama but scared by Romney and Ryan. The model currently assumes an equal split of the undecided vote. If undecided voters break for Obama, he will be in a commanding position to win re-election. He is leading the Real Clear Politics National Average by nearly 4%.</p>
<p>The Likely Voter (LV) polls are anticipate the inevitable election fraud reduction in Obama’s estimated 56.3% True Vote share and 402 electoral votes.</p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)2012 ElectionObamaPollsRomney_1136783Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:25:57 UTCPresidential Election Projection Update
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/14/1119923/-Presidential-Election-Projection-Update
<p>Here is an update on the projected Presidential election results with results from last weeks polling.</p>
<p>The next several weeks should prove to be interesting with Romney selecting Ryan for the second slot.</p>
<p>Hopefully we will have strong debates so we can get an even better handle on the expectations for this election.</p>
<p>Ryan may prove a liability with his connection to the Medicare voucher plan. Could really hurt in Florida. I feel Romney needs Florida and Ohio to have a chance. The Dems are leading in most of the larger states.</p>
<p>Please check out the link.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=3">2012 Presidential Election True Vote Model Projection</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)2012ElectionObamaPollsPresidentialProjectionRomney_1119923Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:14:41 UTCWisconsin: Was the Recall rigged?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/11/1119089/-Wisconsin-Was-the-Recall-rigged
<p>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. ..... 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.</p>
<p>Please read more of this article at:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2012/1936">The Free Press</a></p>
<p>Also check out this interview with Bob Fitkakis:</p>
<p><a href="http://fitrakisforcongress.org/wisconsin-the-theft-of-the-recall-bob-fitrakis-interviewed-by-jim-fetzer/">Bob Fitkakis Interview</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)bob fitrakisElectionsFree PressRecallWisconsin_1119089Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:22:55 UTCElection Fraud: An Introduction to exit poll probability analysis
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/08/1118026/-Election-Fraud-An-Introduction-to-exit-poll-probability-analysis
<p>In any statistical study, the best data must first be collected. The following election fraud analysis is based on the 1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Spreadsheet Database.</p>
<p>The data source is the Roper Center Public Opinion Archives. Exit polls are available for 274 state presidential elections, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections and 24 in 1988.</p>
<p>Exit polls are surveys conducted in selected voting precincts that are chosen to represent the overall state voting population demographic. Voters are randomly selected as they leave the precinct polling booth and asked to complete a survey form indicating 1) who they just voted for, 2) how they voted in the previous election, 3) income range, 4) age group, 5) party-id (Democrat, Republican, Independent), 6) philosophy (liberal, moderate, conservative), and many other questions.</p>
<p>In this analysis we consider the most important question: who did you vote for? Having this information, we calculate the discrepancy between the state exit poll and the recorded vote count.</p>
<p>Note that respondents are not asked to provide personal information. There is no excuse for not releasing exit poll/voting results for each of the 1400+ exit poll precincts. There is no privacy issue.</p>
<p>Key results<br />
- Republican recorded presidential vote shares exceeded the corresponding unadjusted exit poll shares in 226 (82.4%) of the 274 state elections for which there is exit poll data. One would normally expect approximately 137 (50%). The probability is virtually ZERO.</p>
<p>- The exit poll margin of error (described below) was exceeded in 126 (46%) of the 274 polls. The statistical expectation is that the margin of error (MoE) would be exceeded in 14 (5%). The probability is ZERO.</p>
<p>- 123 of the 126 exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded moved to the recorded vote in favor of the Republican (the “red shift”). Just 3 moved in favor of the Democrat (” the blue shift”). There is a ZERO probability that this one-sided shift was due to chance. It is powerful evidence beyond any doubt of pervasive systemic election fraud.</p>
<p>- The Republicans won the recorded vote in 55 states in which the Democrats won the exit poll. Conversely, the Republicans lost the recorded vote in just two states (Iowa and Minnesota in 2000) in which they won the exit poll. If the elections were fair, the number of vote flips would be nearly equal. The probability of this disparity is virtually ZERO.</p>
<p>Basic Statistics and the True Vote Model<br />
The True Vote Model (TVM) is based on current and previous election votes cast (Census), voter mortality and returning voter turnout. Published National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares were applied to new and returning voters. The TVM closely matched the corresponding unadjusted exit polls in each election. It shows that the exit poll discrepancies were primarily due to implausible and/or impossible adjustments required to force the NEP to match the recorded vote. The exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes by adjusting the implied number of returning voters from the previous election. These adjustments are clearly indicated by the percentage mix of returning voters in the current election..</p>
<p>The bedrock of statistical polling analysis is the Law of Large Numbers. As the number of observations in a survey increases, the average will approach the theoretical mean value. For instance, in coin flipping, as the number of flips increase, the average percentage of heads will approach the theoretical 50% mean value.</p>
<p>The Normal distribution is considered the most prominent probability distribution in statistics (“the bell curve”). It is used throughout statistics, natural sciences, and social sciences as a simple model for complex phenomena. For example, the observational error in an election polling is usually assumed to follow a normal distribution, and uncertainty is computed using this assumption. Note that a normally-distributed variable has a symmetric distribution about its mean.</p>
<p>The Binomial distribution distribution calculates the probability P that a given number of events (successes) would occur in n trials given that each trial has a constant probability p of success. For instance, the probability of flipping heads (a success) is 50%. In a fair election, the probability that the exit poll would flip from the Democrat to the Republican (and vice-versa) is also 50%.</p>
<p>The Poisson distribution calculates the probability of a series of events in which each event has a very low probability. For instance, there is a 5% probability that the recorded vote share will differ from the exit poll beyond the MoE.</p>
<p>The Binomial distribution converges towards the Poisson as the number of trials (n) goes to infinity while the product np remains fixed (p is the probability). Therefore the Poisson distribution with parameter λ = np can be used as an approximation to the Binomial distribution B(n,p) if n is sufficiently large and p sufficiently small. The approximation is good if n ≥ 20 and p ≤ 0.05, or if n ≥ 100 and np ≤ 10.</p>
<p>The margin of error is a function of the number of respondents and exit poll “cluster effect” (assumed as 0.30). The Margin of Error Calculator illustrates the effects of sample size and poll share on the margin of error and corresponding win probability.</p>
<p>Ohio 2004 presidential election<br />
In the exit poll, 2020 voters were sampled in approximately 40 precincts, of whom 1092 said they voted for Kerry (54.1%) and 924 for Bush (45.7%). Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.7% (119,000 vote margin). There was a 10.6% margin discrepancy. Given the exit poll data, we can calculate the probability of a) Kerry winning the election and b) of Bush getting his recorded vote share.</p>
<p>The Ohio exit poll MoE was 2.8%. There is a 95.4% probability that the True Vote lies within 2.8% of Kerry’s 54.1% exit poll share. The probabilities are:<br />
- 95.4% that Kerry’s share was between 51.3 and 56.9%<br />
- 97.5% that Kerry had at least 51.3%<br />
The Normal distribution calculates the probability P that Kerry won Ohio.<br />
P = 99.8% = Normdist (.541,.500,.028/1.96, true)</p>
<p>Bush won Ohio with a 50.8% recorded share – a 5.1% increase (red-shift) over his 45.7% exit poll share. The probability of the increase is 1 in 4852 (.02%). Which is correct, the poll or the recorded vote? How could there be such a wide disparity?</p>
<p>1988 presidential election<br />
As indicated above, 24 state exit polls are listed for 1988 on the Roper Center site. These states accounted for 68.7 (75%) of 91.6 million national recorded votes. Dukakis led the 24-poll aggregate by a 51.6-47.3%, but Bush won the corresponding recorded vote by 52.3-46.8%, a 9.8% margin discrepancy. The exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 11 of the 24 states – all in favor of Bush (see the summary statistics at the bottom).</p>
<p>Dukakis also won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 49.8-49.2% – but Bush won by 7 million votes, 53.4-45.6%. According to the U.S. Census, 102.2 million votes were cast and 91.6 million recorded, therefore a minimum of 10.6 million ballots were uncounted. Dukakis had approximately 8 million (75%) of the uncounted votes (see below). Of course, voters whose ballots were uncounted were interviewed by the exit pollsters. That may be one of the reasons why Dukakis won the state and national exit polls and lost the recorded vote.</p>
<p>Calculating the probabilties<br />
The probability P that 55 of 57 exit polls would flip from the Democrats in the exit polls to the Republicans in the recorded vote is given by the Binomial distribution: P= 1-Binomdist(54,57,.5,true)<br />
P= 1.13E-14 = 0.000000000000011 or 1 in 88 trillion!</p>
<p>The probability that the exit poll margin of error would be exceeded in any given state is 5% or 1 in 20. Therefore, approximately 14 of the 274 exit polls would be expected to exceed the margin of error, 7 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.</p>
<p>Given the relationship between the exit poll, margin of error and corresponding win probability, we compare the 274 state exit polls to the corresponding recorded votes. The Republicans did better in the recorded vote than in the exit polls in 226 (82.4%) of the 274 elections. The probability of this one-sided red-shift is 3.7E-31 or 1 in 2.7 million trillion trillion.</p>
<p>The MoE was exceeded in 123 exit polls in favor of the Republican – and just 3 for the Democrat. The simple Poisson spreadsheet function calculates the probability P:<br />
P = 5E-106 = Poisson (123, .025*274, false)<br />
P = 1 in 1.8 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.<br />
The probability is ZERO. There are 106 places to the right of the decimal!<br />
P = .0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000005</p>
<p>Sensitivity Analysis<br />
Sensitivity analysis is an important tool for viewing the effects of alternative assumptions on key results from a mathematical model.</p>
<p>In pre-election polls, the margin of error (MoE) is based strictly on the number of respondents. In exit polls, however, a “cluster factor” is added to the calculated MoE. Therefore, the number of states in which the MoE was exceeded in 1988-2008 (and the corresponding probabilities) is a function of the cluster effect.</p>
<p>The MoE was exceeded in 126 of 274 exit polls assuming a 30% “cluster factor” (the base case). Although 30% is the most common estimate, political scientists and statisticians may differ on the appropriate cluster factor to be used in a given exit poll. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis worksheet of various cluster factor assumptions (ranging from 0% to 200%) is displayed in the 1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Poll Spreadsheet Reference. The purpose is to determine the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded over a range of cluster factors.</p>
<p>If there was no cluster effect, the margin of error was exceeded in 157 of 274 exit polls. In the base case (30% cluster), 126 exceeded the MoE.</p>
<p>Note: MoE is the average margin of error for the 6 elections, CF is the cluster factor, N is the number of exit polls in which the MoE was exceeded.<br />
MoE CF...N..Probability<br />
2.5% 0% 157 2.0E-106 ZERO<br />
3.2% 30% 126 8.0E-75 ZERO (base case cluster factor)<br />
3.7% 50% 113 1.4E-62 ZERO<br />
5.0% 100% 76 1.5E-31 ZERO (1 in 7 million trillion trillion)<br />
6.2% 150% 50 2.5E-14 (1 in 40 trillion)<br />
7.0% 180% 35 6.6E-7 ( 1 in 1.5 million)<br />
7.5% 200% 25 1.9E-03 (1 in 500)</p>
<p>Even with extremely conservative cluster factor assumptions, the sensitivity analysis indicates a ZERO probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in the six elections. Were the massive discrepancies due to inferior polling by the most experienced mainstream media exit pollsters in the world? Or are they further mathematical confirmation of systemic election fraud – beyond any doubt?</p>
<p>Overwhelming Evidence<br />
The one-sided results of the 375,000 state exit poll respondents over the last six presidential elections leads to only one conclusion: the massive exit poll discrepancies cannot be due to faulty polling and is overwhelming evidence that systemic election fraud has favored the Republicans in every election since 1988.</p>
<p>Fraud certainly cost the Democrats at least two elections (2000, 2004) and likely a third (1988). And in the three elections they won, their margin was reduced significantly by election fraud.</p>
<p>To those who say that quoting these impossible probabilities invites derision, that it is overkill, my response is simply this: those are the actual results that the mathematical functions produced based on public data. The mathematical probabilities need to be an integral part of any election discussion or debate and need to be addressed by media pundits and academics.</p>
<p>Media polling pollsters, pundits and academics need to do a comparable scientific analysis of historical exit polls and create their own True Vote models. So-called independent journalists need to discuss the devil in the details of systemic election fraud. They can start by trying to debunk the analysis presented here.</p>
<p>Presidential Summary</p>
<p>Election.. 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Average<br />
Recorded Vote<br />
Democrat.. 45.7 43.0 49.3 48.4 48.3 52.9 47.9<br />
Republican 53.4 37.4 40.7 47.9 50.7 45.6 46.0</p>
<p>Unadjusted Aggregate State Exit Polls (weighted by voting population)<br />
Democrat.. 50.3 47.6 52.6 50.8 51.1 58.0 51.7<br />
Republican 48.7 31.7 37.1 44.4 47.5 40.3 41.6</p>
<p>Unadjusted National Exit Poll<br />
Democrat.. 49.8 46.3 52.6 48.5 51.7 61.0 51.7<br />
Republican 49.2 33.5 37.1 46.3 47.0 37.2 41.7</p>
<p>1988-2008 Red-shift Summary (274 exit polls)<br />
The following table lists the<br />
a) Number of states in which the exit poll red-shifted to the Republican,<br />
b) Number of states which red-shifted beyond the margin of error,<br />
c) Probability of n states red-shifting beyond the MoE,<br />
d) Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share,<br />
e) Democratic recorded share,<br />
f) Difference between Democratic exit poll and recorded share.</p>
<p>Year RS >MoE Probability.... Exit Vote Diff<br />
1988* 20. 11... 5.0E-11..... 50.3 45.7 4.6 Dukakis may have won<br />
1992 44.. 26... 2.4E-25..... 47.6 43.0 4.6 Clinton landslide<br />
1996 43.. 16... 4.9E-13..... 52.6 49.3 3.3 Clinton landslide<br />
2000 34.. 12... 8.7E-09..... 50.8 48.4 2.4 Gore win stolen<br />
2004 40.. 22... 3.5E-20..... 51.1 48.3 2.8 Kerry landslide stolen<br />
2008 45.. 36... 2.4E-37..... 58.0 52.9 5.1 Obama landslide denied<br />
Total 226. 123. 5.0E-106.... 51.7 47.9 3.8<br />
* 274 exit polls (24 in 1988, 50 in each of the 1992-2008 elections)</p>
<p>The Democrats led the 1988-2008 vote shares as measured by:<br />
1) Recorded vote: 47.9-45.9%<br />
2) Exit Pollster (WPE/IMS): 50.8-43.1%<br />
3) Unadjusted State Exit Polls: 51.7-41.6%<br />
4) Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 51.6-41.7%</p>
<p>True Vote Model (method based on previous election returning voters)<br />
5) Method 1: 50.2-43.4% (recorded vote)<br />
6) Method 2: 51.6-42.0% (allocation of uncounted votes)<br />
7) Method 3: 52.5-41.1% (unadjusted exit poll)<br />
8) Method 4: 53.0-40.6% (recursive True Vote)</p>
<p>The Democrats won the exit poll but lost the recorded vote in the following states. The corresponding decline in electoral votes cost the Democrats to lose the 1988, 2000, 2004 elections:</p>
<p>1988 (7): CA IL MD MI NM PA VT<br />
Dukakis’ electoral vote was reduced from 271 in the exit polls to 112 in the recorded vote. The U.S. Vote Census indicated that there were 10.6 million net uncounted votes in 1988. Since only 24 states were exit polled, a proxy equivalent was estimated for each of the other 26 states by allocating 75% of the uncounted votes to Dukakis. The average 3.47% MoE of the 24 exit polls was assumed for each of the 26 states. Four of the 26 flipped to Bush: CO LA MT SD.</p>
<p>The rationale for deriving the estimate is Method 2 of the 1988-2008 True Vote Model in which 75% of uncounted votes were allocated to the Democrat. The resulting 51.6% average Democratic share (see above) exactly matched the unadjusted exit polls (TVM #3). This article by Bob Fitrakis provides evidence that uncounted votes are heavily Democratic.</p>
<p>1992 (10): AK AL AZ FL IN MS NC OK TX VA<br />
Clinton’s EV flipped from from 501 to 370.</p>
<p>1996 (11): AL CO GA IN MS MT NC ND SC SD VA<br />
Clinton’s EV flipped from 464 to 379.</p>
<p>2000 (12):AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA (Gore needed just ONE to win)<br />
Gore’s EV flipped from 382 to 267.</p>
<p>2004 (8): CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA (Kerry would have won if he carried FL or OH)<br />
Kerry’s EV flipped from 349 to 252.</p>
<p>2008 (7): AL AK AZ GA MO MT NE<br />
Obama’s EV flipped from 419 to 365.</p>
<p><a href="http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/election-fraud-an-introduction-to-exit-poll-probability-analysis/">Exit Poll Fraud Analysis</a></p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&gid=15">1988-2008 Unadjusted Exit Poll Spreadsheet</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)ElectionsExit PollsPresidential_1118026Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:10:33 UTCObama Landslide? Not with a 3% Lead and 5% Fraud Factor
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/07/1117503/-Obama-Landslide-Not-with-a-3-Lead-and-5-Fraud-Factor
<p>The 2012 Presidential True Vote and Election Fraud Simulation Model (TVM) is a combination of 1) pre-election Monte Carlo Simulation Election Model, based on the latest state polling and 2) post-election True Vote Model, based on a feasible estimate of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding estimated vote shares. The model will be updated periodically for the latest state and national polls.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=14">MODEL LINK</a></p>
<p>The model projections assume the election is held on the date of the latest poll date.</p>
<p>The latest state and national polls show that Obama has a 2-4% lead over Romney.</p>
<p>Obama needs a True Vote of at least 55% in order to overcome the historic 4-5% red-shift (the fraud factor). In other words he needs to win by a 10% True Vote Margin.</p>
<p>Pre-election Polls and the”Horse Race”</p>
<p>The Real Clear Politics website archives the latest polls on a daily basis. The model uses 2008 recorded vote shares for states that have not yet been polled. These are one-sided states in which the outcome is a near certainty...<br />
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...</a></p>
<p>Virtually all of the current national polls are of Registered Voters (RV). An exception is Rasmussen, a GOP pollster, whose daily tracking poll is a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the RV.</p>
<p>One month before the election, pollsters convert from the full RV sampleto the LV subsample using the "Likely Voter Cutoff Model". The pollsters expect there will be fraud, so they prepare for it. The RV polls are transformed to LV subsets in order to promote an artificial “horse race”. The pundits want to predict the recorded vote. The closer they are, the better they look. But they never mention that it’s the fraud factor that gets them close. LV polls are usually good predictors of the fraudulent recorded vote.</p>
<p>The Likely Voter Cutoff Model effectively understates the potential turnout of millions of new Democratic voters who do not pass the LVCM. The pollsters and the pundits invariably claim that the race is "tightening" and LV polls are better predictors. And it's: they are better predictors of the fraudulent recorded vote.</p>
<p>1988-2008 Exit Poll Discrepancies</p>
<p>Based on the historic record, Obama needs at least 55% to overcome systemic built-in fraud. In 2008 Obama had a 58% weighted average in the unadjusted STATE exit polls (76,000 respondents). He had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (a 17,836 respondent subset of the state polls).</p>
<p>But for the same 17,836 respondents, the FINAL National Exit poll was forced to match the 52.9% recorded share. Obama’s 18% state aggregate unadjusted exit poll margin was reduced to 7.5% But that’s to be expected; all finals are forced to match the recorded vote.</p>
<p>Election fraud cut 4% from the average 1988-2008 Democratic presidential share. The Democrats won the unadjusted exit polls by 52-42%, but their recorded vote margin was just 48-46%.</p>
<p>Democratic True Vote = Recorded Vote + Fraud Factor</p>
<p>Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded votes that were predicted by the final pre-election LV polls.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Frichardcharnin.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2F26%2Fthe-2012-presidential-true-vote-and-election-fraud-simulation-model%2F&h=FAQHvuaPO">2012 Election True Vote Model</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)ObamaPollsPresidential Election_1117503Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:20:42 UTCWisconsin Recall Election - Update
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/05/1117049/-Wisconsin-Recall-Election-Update
<p>A group of citizens has undertaken the task of reviewing the recent Recall election in Wisconsin. They are going over the official records from each county.</p>
<p>The results have not been released as of yet, rather the group is waiting until more/all of the counties are completed.</p>
<p>One county is currently available and it shows some disturbing facts. The county is Winnebago and generally leans slightly red.</p>
<p>Winnebago uses Optiscans and TSX Touchscreens. The review compared vote totals on optiscans versus vote totals on the touchscreens.</p>
<p>Several areas showed significant difference when using touchscreens. Of course these tended to benefit Walker. Also of note was the very high use of touchscreens in these areas.</p>
<p>The first thought is what are the chances this is just a random event. Well there is a way to calculate that. Check out the link below for the results.</p>
<p>I will update as more counties become available.</p>
<p><a href="http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/winnebago-county-walker-recall-a-probability-analysis-of-differences-between-optical-scan-and-touch-screen-vote-counts/">Probability Analysis - Winnebago County</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)AnalysisElectionRecallWalker_1117049Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:54:14 UTCWisconsin Recall Election Questions
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/31/1115234/-Wisconsin-Recall-Election-Questions
<p>A number of people, including myself, have poured over the reported vote totals from the recent Recall election for Gov Walker.</p>
<p>For a little background for those not familiar with the situation in Wisconsin. Gov Walker took office in January 2011. He immediately started attacking Public Unions demanding concessions and stripping the Unions from bargaining for wages and working conditions. As you can guess this did cause a brouhaha such as an occupation of the State Capitol and large protests.</p>
<p>In April of 2011 an election was held for the State Supreme Court between the Incumbent David Prosser and the challenger JoAnne Kloppenberg. Intially Ms Kloppenberg was given little chance as polls in February showed her losing by about 30 points and only two months before the election. Well surprisingly due to the upheaval concernign Gov Walker and the Unions the election was very close. On election night Kloppenberg had a 214 vote lead. Two days later it was reported that about 15,000 votes in heavy Republican Waukesha County were not included. This necessitated a recount whch showed Prosser up by 7,004 votes.</p>
<p>A Recall was started against Walker in November of 2011 and in the 60 days prescribed by law collected 900,000 signatures, 540,000 required for a Recall. A Recall election was scheduled for June 5, 2012.</p>
<p>Now remember the close Supreme Court race mentioned above and the recall petition drive with the 900,000 signatures collected would certainly lead most people to believe Gov Walker was not all that popular with a sizable portion of the electorate. All day until poll closing media reports were that exit polls showed the race a "dead heat". Yet 45 minutes after poll closing it was called for Walker with about a 7 point margin. Exit polls are not 7 points off.</p>
<p>As I mentioned before many people have looked at the results and can see many "irregularities" with the numbers. Please take a moment to check the sites listed below. Remember the truth is in the numbers. Every election will have a few unusual numbers but this election is rife with them. One can only conclude that requires the powers that be look into this. Democracy will be lost if the elections are rigged. This election was rigged.</p>
<p>If you wish to see my numbers please let me know and I can get them to you.</p>
<p>In the meantime check out these sites:</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdEd0NFV5QV9DclZFTDJ3aHpqRVh4LWc#gid=3">Richard Charnin</a></p>
<p><a href="http://myplayfulself.com/wordpress/">My Playful Self - Dennis Kern</a></p>
rss@dailykos.com (Votes Must Count)ElectionsGov WalkerRecallWisconsin_1115234Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:29:28 UTC