TruthIsAll Election Analysis

2004
Method: Final NEP Forced to Match
				95%	98%
	Recorded	Cast	Recorded	Alive	Voted		Voter	2004	National Exit Poll			Voter %
	2000	2000	2000	2004	2004		Turnout	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other	Turnout
DNV		-	-	-	-	DNV	20.8	17%	54%	45%	1%	-
Gore	48.4%	55.3	51.0	48.5	47.5	Gore	45.2	37	90	10	0	93
Bush	47.9%	51.8	50.5	47.9	47.0	Bush	52.6	43	9	91	0	110
Other	3.8%	4.0	4.0	3.8	3.7	Other	3.7	3	71	21	8	98
												Margin
Total		111.2	105.4	100.1	98.1	Total	122.30	Share	48.5%	51.1%	0.4%	-2.6%
								Vote	59.3	62.5	0.5	-3.2

							Recorded	Share	48.3%	50.7%	1.0%	-2.5%
							Vote	122.3	59.0	62.0	1.2	-3.0

2004
Method: True Vote
				95%	98%
	True Vote	Cast	Recorded	Alive	Voted		Voter	2004	National Exit Poll			Voter %
	2000	2000	2000	2004	2004		Turnout	Mix	Kerry	Bush	Other	Turnout
DNV		-	-	-	-	DNV	22.6	18%	57%	41%	2%	-
Gore	50.3%	55.8	51.0	53.0	51.9	Gore	51.9	41	91	8	1	98
Bush	46.0%	50.9	50.5	48.4	47.4	Bush	47.4	38	10	90	0	98
Other	3.7%	4.1	4.0	3.9	3.8	Other	3.8	3	64	17	19	98
												Margin
Total		110.8	105.4	105.3	103.2	Total	125.74	Share	53.5%	45.1%	1.3%	8.4%
								Vote	67.3	56.7	1.7	10.6

							Recorded	Share	48.3%	50.7%	1.0%	-2.5%
							Vote	122.3	59.0	62.0	1.2	-3.0
											Error	-10.9%

2008
Method: Final NEP Forced to Match
				95%	97%
	Recorded	Cast	Recorded	Alive	Voted	Voter	2008	National Exit Poll			Voter %
	2004	2004	2004	2008	2008	Turnout	Mix	Obama	McCain	Other	Turnout
DNV		-	-	-	-	17.1	13%	71%	27%	2%	-
Kerry	48.3%	62.2	59.0	56.1	54.4	48.6	37	89	9	2	87
Bush	50.7%	63.1	62.0	58.9	57.2	60.5	46	17	82	1	103
Other	1.0%	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.1	5.3	4	66	26	8	451
											Margin
Total		126.5	122.3	116.2	112.7	131.46	Share	52.6%	45.6%	1.8%	7.0%
							Vote	69.2	59.9	2.3	9.2

						Recorded	Share	52.9%	45.6%	1.5%	7.3%
						Vote	131.5	69.5	60.0	2.0	9.6

2008
Method: True Vote
				95%	97%
	True Vote	Cast	Recorded	Alive	Voted	Voter	2008	National Exit Poll			Voter %
	2004	2004	2004	2008	2008	Turnout	Mix	Obama	McCain	Other	Turnout
DNV		-	-	-	-	16.4	12%	71%	27%	2%	-
Kerry	53.5%	67.3	59.0	63.9	62.0	62.0	47	89	9	2	97
Bush	45.1%	56.7	62.0	53.9	52.3	52.3	40	17	82	1	97
Other	1.3%	1.7	1.2	1.6	1.6	1.6	1	66	26	8	97
											Margin
Total		125.7	122.3	119.4	115.9	132.31	Share	58.0%	40.3%	1.7%	17.8%
							Vote	76.8	53.3	2.2	23.5

						Recorded	Share	52.9%	45.6%	1.5%	7.3%
						Vote	131.5	69.5	60.0	2.0	9.6
						Diff				Error	-10.5%

2000

Miami-Herald: Gore won Florida by 46,000 votes!

2004

To Believe Bush Won...

Keith Olbermann on 2004 Voting Irregularities

2004 State Polling Trend

2004 RV and LV National Poll Trend

Returning 2000 and New Voter Turnout Proves Kerry Won

Graphic Timeline of 2004 Election Results (pdf)

Election Model Monte Carlo Forecast Simulation

Kerry 51.8-Bush 48.2%, 337 EV

Recorded: Bush 50.7-48.3%, 286 EV

Further Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide

2004 Election Fraud Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide (PDF)

Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate: Kerry 52.0-47.0%, 337 EV

Recursive True Vote Model: Kerry 53.5-45.1%, 67-57m, 379 EV

2006

2006 Midterms Overview

Quantifying the Risk

A Formula for Catching Election Fraud:

Democrats should take 40 House and 6 Senate seats

Generic Poll Trend Forecasting Model

Democratic Projection: 56.43%

Unadjusted National Exit Poll: 56.37%

CNN Final National Exit Poll: 52-46%

2008

The Primaries: Footprints of Election Fraud

2008 Election Fraud Analytics

Election Model: Monte Carlo Forecast Simulation

Final Projection: Obama 53.1%; 365.3 expected electoral votes

Expected EV = 365.3 =∑ win probability (i) * EV(i), i=1,51 states

Simulation (5000 trials) EV: 365.8 mean; 367 median

Recorded Vote: Obama 52.9-45.6%, 69.5-59.9m; 365 EV

True Vote Model: Obama 58.0-40.3%, 77-54m, 419 EV

2010

MA Senate Race: Coakley won the Handcounts

Election Fraud Truth Seekers

Victoria Collier: A Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America

FOOTPRINTS AND RECIPIES

Michael Keefer: Footprints of Electoral Fraud

Election Fraud in America

The 2006 US Midterms: Another Stolen Election?

The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio

Greg Palast: Kerry Won; Recipe for a Cooked Election

Thom Hartmann: Evidence Mounts that the Vote May Have Been Hacked

STATISTICAL ANOMALIES

Steven F. Freeman: The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

Prof. John Allen Paulos: Final Tallies - Exit Polls: A Statistical Mystery

Michael Collins: The Urban Legend

A COMPLICIT MEDIA

Robert Koehler: Silent Scream of The Numbers

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Mark Crispin Miller: None Dare Call It Stolen

Some Might Call it Treason – An Open Letter to Salon

Jim Lampley: The Biggest Story of Our Lives; Apologies; Ostriches; Revisiting the Biggest Story

HARD EVIDENCE

Paul Lehto: Presidential Vote Recount Rigging in Ohio

Evidence of Election Irregularities in Snohomish County, WA

Bib Fitrakis: Missing Votes in Ohio 2006 Midterms

HACKING THE VOTE

Ion Sancho, Leon Cty (FL) Supervisor of Elections: The Hursti Hack

Lynn Landes: Voting Security

Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.: Electronic Voting

RESISTANCE AND DENIAL

Diane Perlman: The Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud

References

Reference Links

Historical Voting Machine Timeline

The 2004 Election Fraud Beginners Guide

Eye on Ohio: The Informed Citizen’s Guide to the 2004 Election

US Count Votes/National Election Data Archive

US Count Votes: History of the Debate Surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election

DUers byronius and autorank (Michael Collins): http://www.truthisall.net/

DUer DrDebug: http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/845

TruthIsAll: Postings (2004-2005) ; Postings since 2005

Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”)

Upon graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”) began his career as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer. In 1976, he moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for three major investment banks. When personal computers became available in 1982, he converted many of these application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he has specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. He has an MS in applied mathematics (Adelphi University, 1969) and an MS in Operations Research (Polytechnic Institute of NY, 1973).

Charnin never imagined that years later he would become a prolific Internet poster. But after the 2000 election fiasco, he was motivated to develop a robust election forecast model. In July 2004 he began posting weekly Election Model projections based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. Immediately following the election, he began posting exit poll analyses on a frequent basis. The postings sparked heated debates and attracted hundreds of viewers.

The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters - but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004. Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million. In the U.S., final national and state exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote – even if doing so requires an impossible turnout of prior election voters and implausible vote shares.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on Census total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout. It determined that Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV.

Forced to retire in Feb. 2006 after suffering a near-fatal heart attack, Charnin spent four months in two hospitals. While recuperating, he proceeded to develop projection models and exit poll analysis for the 2006 midterms. The Final 2006 National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 52-46% vote share.The Generic 120-poll Trend Model projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote. It was within 0.06% of the unadjusted exit poll.

In 2008, analyses of the primaries showed that Obama did significantly better than reported. In July, Charnin began posting weekly projections, this time using an updated 2008 version of the original Election Model. The final projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 recorded electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share, a 9.5 million margin. But the forecast was too conservative; it was based on final likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Final registered voter (RV) polls had 13% - before undecided voters were allocated.

Once again in 2008, the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote by requiring 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. There are many anomalies in the Final, including a) there were more returning Bush 2004 voters than were living in 2008, b) Bush won the recorded vote by just 3.0 million and c) Kerry won the exit poll by 7 million, d) there were 5 million returning third party voters but only 1.3 million voted in 2004. Assuming Kerry won by the exit poll margin, one would expect approximately 7 million more returning Kerry than Bush voters – a difference of 19 million from the Final National Exit Poll. The post-election True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes, had 420 EV and a 58% share.

The average Democratic True Vote share from 1968 to 2008 exceeded the recorded share by four percent (49-45%).

Proving Election Fraud is a detailed analysis of pre and post-election polling data that the mainstream media avoids discussing. The book proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the recorded vote is always different from the True Vote. As a programmer using second-generation computers that took us to the moon, Charnin knows that voting machine “glitches” are not the cause of the failure to properly count the votes. It’s the fault of the humans who program them.