Presidential True Vote. Systemic Election Fraud Forecast Model
by Richard Charnin
Proving Election Fraud
Is there another forecaster in the corporate media who dares discuss systemic election fraud or include a True Vote analysis in their model?
This model is updated several times daily. Unlike other models which are widely quoted, this is the only one which CORRECTLY uses Monte Carlo Simulation to calculate the EXPECTED RECORDED ELECTORAL VOTE based on the pre-election LV polls. The LVs UNDERSTATE Obama’s True Vote as result of the likely voter cutoff model which ALWAYS understates Democratic turnout.
Based on the LV polls, Obama has a 98% probability of winning the Electoral Vote , not 80% as Nate Silver would have you believe. His model is obviously contaminated by extraneous variables. Nate tries to impress with 100,000 simulations. In reality only 500 are necessary to determine the EV win probability.
Calculating the expected EV does NOT require a simulation or Professor Wang’s Meta-model of one million simulations.
If you have the state win probabilities (p(i), the expected EV is just … well, the expected value is just a simple summation:
Expected EV = sum [p(i)* EV(i) ], for i =1,51 states.
- The Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation is based on the latest state polls and currently assumes an equal split of undecided voters. The expected electoral vote is the sum of the products of the state win probabilities and corresponding electoral votes.
- The True Vote Model is based on plausible turnout estimates of new and returning 2008 voters and corresponding vote shares.
The model calculates an estimated True Vote forecast for the National aggregate or any state. The calculation is displayed below the input data section. State poll-based national vote shares, electoral vote and probabilities are displayed on the right side of the screen.
The polling data is from the Real Clear Politics (RCP) and Electoral-vote.com websites. The simulation uses the latest state polls.
The “Big Mo” continues in Obama’s favor.
Obama: 319 expected electoral votes; 99% win probability (497 of 500 trials).
He leads the state poll weighted average by 49-45.8%.
He leads in 15 of 18 Battleground states by 51.3-47.5% with 169 of 205 EV.
Obama leads Romney in the RCP National average: 47.4-47.3%.
Rasmussen and Gallup are Likely Voter (LV) polls which lean to the GOP.
Rasmussen: Obama has tied Romney 48-48%.
Gallup: Romney leads by 51-46% (no update for almost a week ????).
Obama leads in the Rand poll 48.9-46.2%. Unlike LV polls, the Rand poll doesn’t eliminate respondents but rather weights them on a scale of 1-10 (based on voter preference and intention to vote). This illustrates why LV polls understate Obama’s share.
LV polls are a subset of the registered voter (RV) sample. The LV subset always understates the Democratic vote. The majority of voters eliminated by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) are newly registered Democrats.</em>
The True Vote Model indicates that Obama would have 55.2% of the two-party vote with 371 expected EV in a fraud-free election. Will he be able to overcome the systemic fraud factor?
That is the question that Nate Silver or any of the other so-called experts never consider.
I will say this: The post-mortem True vote analysis will probably show that the red-shift reduced Obama’s margin by at least 10 million votes.