2014 Illinois Governor Cumulative Vote Shares and Exit Poll Anomalies

Richard Charnin

July 31, 2015

Updated: Jan. 19, 2016

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

Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Rauner (R) defeated the incumbent Quinn (D) by 170,000 votes (50.7-45.9%). The following analysis indicates that Quinn may have actually won re-election. The 2014 Illinois Governor spreadsheet contains precinct votes by county, the True Vote Model and adjusted exit poll.

– Pre-election Polls: Quinn led the final LV pre-election polls: 45.6-44.8%. LV polls are a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls. Respondents deemed unlikely to vote (most of them Democratic) are eliminated from the full RV sample. RV polls usually match the Unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote Model. LV polls have closely matched the recorded vote.

– Cumulative Vote shares: The largest counties all showed Rauner vote shares increasing with cumulative precinct vote totals. This is a major red flag. The results confirm the CVS trend: GOP cumulative shares rise from the smallest to the largest counties, as shown in the graphs. At the 10% CVS mark, Quinn had 54.4%, compared to his final 45.7%.

At the 25% mark, Quinn had 52.7%.

– Exit poll anomalies: The Governor exit poll matched the recorded vote to within 0.4%. It is standard procedure to adjust the poll to match the recorded vote.In the Party-ID category, Democrats led Republicans by 43-30%. But only 85% of Democrats voted for Quinn while 64% of Independents voted for Rauner.

– The True Vote Model

Quinn wins by 54.2-42.4%, a 428,000 vote margin.

Assumptions:

1) Obama’s 2012 recorded 57.6% Illinois share

2) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters

3) Quinn has 87% of returning Obama voters

4) Quinn has 7% of returning Romney voters

The built-in sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of voter turnout and vote shares assumptions. The basis is the 2012 presidential election. His share of returning Obama voters ranges from 83-89%; returning Romney voters from 5-9%; new voters from 44-52%. Quinn wins 72 of 75 scenarios. A win probability matrix is displayed for 25 combinations of Quinn’s share of returning Obama and Romney voters. Quinn wins all scenarios.

Cumulative Vote Shares

The famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. He replied: “That’s where the money is”. The Republicans know where to go to steal votes: the large urban counties where Democrats live.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/edit#gid=1776944924

The largest counties showed increasing Rauner vote shares as the cumulative precinct vote totals increased – a major red flag. It is clear that the largest counties were most likely fraudulent. There is little to gain in small counties which are strongly Republican to begin with.

Quinn had 54.4% at the 10% mark which declined to 46.5% (344,000 votes).

His 61.5% share of the 15 largest counties dropped to 51.2%.

His 33.5% share in the other 87 counties dropped to 30.4%.

CVS percentage and vote changes (in thousands)

(25% mark to the final recorded vote)



Cook.......... 8% 108

Will......... 15% 29.4

St. Clair.... 15% 11.4

Peoria....... 15% 7.8

Rock Island.. 11% 7.2

Sangamon..... 10% 7.15

Macon......... 9% 3

Winnebago..... 9% 7.1

Lake.......... 6% 12.1

DuPage........ 3% 8.6



There is a -0.37 correlation between county size and Quinn’s vote share change from 25% to the final 100%. Quinn’s share goes down as county size increases.

In Democratic leaning counties (1.7 million votes), Quinn’s share declined from 69.6% to 60.2% (162,000 thousand votes).

Heavily Democratic Cook county had 1.3 million of the 3.6 million state voters.

Quinn had 75% of the first 100 thousand votes in the smallest Cook precincts,

72% of the first 500 thousand,

69% of the first 1 million,

64.8% of the total 1.3 million who voted in Cook county.



Exit Poll Anomalies

The exit poll matched the recorded vote to within 0.4%. But it is standard procedure to adjust the poll to match the vote.The following crosstabs reflect the recorded vote – not the True Vote:

Gender: Quinn led the female vote by 51-44%, an increase from his 49-44% share in the 2010 election.

Race: Minority voters were 9% of the vote, but the vote shares are missing.

Philosophy: Liberals comprised just 25% of the electorate. Quinn’s 80% share declined from 84% in 2010. His share of moderates declined from a winning 7% margin in 2010 to a 12% loss.

Party-ID: Self-identified Democrats led Republicans by 43% – 30%. But only 85% voted for Quinn? Independents voted for Rauner by 64-29%?

Education: Quinn won Post graduates by 55-43% (20% of the vote). But Rauner won College grads by 60-36% (31% of the vote). This is an implausible discrepancy.

Labor: Quinn had just 58%?

Senate Election: Durbin (D) easily won re-election by 55-43%.

But just 82% of Durbin voters voted for Quinn?

Note:

Cumulative Vote Share posts:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KU4D23gIamrsXb4pPnrIcoA3FjDkzqkeaX_kApIh1J0/pub

– A statistical study of precinct level data in US presidential elections reveals a correlation of large precincts and increased fraction of Republican votes.

Click to access 1410.8868.pdf

– Wichita State University engineering professor and statistician Beth Clarkson has accused three states — Wisconsin, Ohio, & Kansas — of voting irregularities that indicate a tampering of electronic voting machines. In her recently published journal article, she reviews the statistical anomalies in the three states — including laying out her entire mathematical methodology, inviting others to replicate the study. Clarkson has filed suit trying to gain full access to the ballots for an independent audit of the paper ‘hard copies.’

http://ivn.us/2015/07/20/report-2014-voting-machine-tampering-likely-wisconsin-ohio-kansas/

















Adams

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=1325736154&format=interactive

Champaign

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=269618494&format=interactive

Cook

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=694821319&format=interactive

DuPage

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=1407248476&format=interactive

Kane

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=333132230&format=interactive

Kankakee

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=1506081481&format=interactive

Lake

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=907532757&format=interactive

Madison

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=1410720243&format=interactive

McHenry

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=1879256266&format=interactive

Peoria

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=596243564&format=interactive

St.Clair

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=363120484&format=interactive

Will

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=596651451&format=interactive

Winnebago

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6xm1XWdTYSEt5eXK1AegOY9iLx1ufseWVRzxQsz6N4/pubchart?oid=184351637&format=interactive