Richard Charnin

June 24, 2016

Updated: July 4

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

Democratic Primaries spread sheet

TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

LINKS TO POSTS

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

In California on Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.

Sanders leads in votes counted since Election Day by 52.3-47.7% . These include mail-ins, crossover ballots, provisional ballots and others. The votes have been individually verified. That is a whopping 17.4% discrepancy in margin from Election Day.

It appears that nearly 15% of Sanders’ votes were flipped to Clinton on maliciously-coded voting machines and central tabulators. View the CA Update spreadsheet.

In addition, thousands of ballots may have been illegally shredded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNsnsWZn0Ws

Poll workers claim that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote using provisional ballots. There were two reasons for this:

1- Previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls.

2- Some were marked as vote by mail voters – but they had received no ballot in the mail. Virtually all who were not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.

Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the vote count. The contrast indicates vote-flipping.

If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California. The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.

EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL – A 23% DISCREPANCY

Election Justice USA is a voter advocacy non-profit organization which demands a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots. It asserts that the Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. In Los Angeles area polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton lead over Bernie Sanders was less than 10 percent.

“The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

Provisional Ballots

Acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast exposed the fraud in Florida in 2000. In How California is being stolen from Sanders right now he wrote. “As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”

Simple California Vote Share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.

a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats

(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)

b) Sanders won 70% of Independents



Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton

IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%

DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%

Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5% Sensitivity Analysis What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?

Sanders would have won by 55-45%. Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats

………………………..Sanders% IND

Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%

% DEM……… Sanders Vote share

45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%

40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%

35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%

30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%

25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

Sanders’ Vote share change from Election Day

CALIFORNIA Election Day Current Difference TOTAL 43.63% 46.56% 2.93% ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7% ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8% AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3% BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1% CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9% COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0% CONTRA COSTA 40.2% 42.5% 2.3% DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2% EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9% FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6% GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6% HUMBOLDT 68.7% 68.7% 0.0% IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0% INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9% KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4% KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5% LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0% LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0% LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7% MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6% MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3% MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0% MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6% MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1% MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6% MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7% MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8% NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9% NEVADA 60.2% 61.2% 1.0% ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8% PLACER 42.5% 42.5% 0.0% PLUMAS 55.0% 55.0% 0.0% RIVERSIDE 39.4% 42.9% 3.4% SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3% SAN BENARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6% SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5% SAN DIEGO 44.5% 48.0% 3.5% SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0% SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3% SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0% SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0% SANTA BARBARA 49.4% 51.1% 1.7% SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1% SANTA CRUZ 55.6% 57.7% 2.1% SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5% SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7% SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0% SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5% SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0% STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8% SUTTER 44.4% 46.5% 2.1% TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9% TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3% TULARE 40.7% 44.6% 3.8% TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2% VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7% YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7% YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/