Waukesha, Which Numbers would you Bet On?

?If you were looking to invest your future pension funds with a broker would you go with a person who was granted immunity from prosecution in a felony investigation? Well, that is exactly what the State of Wisconsin and the Government Accountability Board (GAB) has done.

Kathy Nickolaus was granted immunity from conviction in exchange for her testimony in the Caucus Scandal 2002-2005, (Read “Prosser-Back to the Future yet it is her count, her vote tabulation, her method that determined that Prosser was the winner of the Spring Supreme Court Election

So, who do we trust with the numbers? What evidence is out there to suggest that Katy Nickolalus and the GAB were wrong.

Meet Richard Charnin.

Richard Charnin graduated from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics. He has an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. His first position was 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 mainframe application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations.

Richard is the author of “Proving Election Fraud” Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll.

You can learn more about the book and order it from Amazon

Now Back to the Numbers

Assuming you might rather invest your “vote portfolio” with Richard over Kathy (Madoff) Nickolaus, we can look at what evidence and analysis they each have to offer in turn.

Kathy Nickolaus

Kathy is “would be”, convicted felon who is also the County Clerk of Waukesha County. As mentioned previously, her methodology was to keep the vote tabulation for the County on her personal lap top computer, on unique and secret software approved for her by the GAB. Because of her methods and lack of transparency in previous elections, she was called on the carpet by her own County Board to be reprimanded and ordered to alter her procedures. She did not do so. She discovered, found, or “forgot to save” 14000 votes in City of Brookfield two days after the polls closed in the Spring Supreme Court Election. Her explanation was concise, apologetic, and so suspicious it ignited national attention. It can be boiled down to two words: “human error”.

That’s it. No graphs. No detailed evidence. No procedural analysis. No spread sheets. Just “Trust me, I made a boo boo.”

Richard Charnin

Richard, on the other hand, has presented a detailed, scientific, statistical analysis that suggests that it was highly improbable if not downright impossible for Kloppenburg to have lost the election against Prosser.

I am not going to show you the impressive detail of his analysis here, but his beautiful and complete work is transparent and available on his web address below the graph.

It comes down to this:
The assumption is that just 50% of those that voted in the 2008 Presidential election returned to the polls in Waukesha to vote in the Supreme Court Election.

So, assuming 50% turnout of Obama voters and 50% turnout of McCain voters then 13% of those who voted for Obama would have had to change parties and vote for Prosser in order for Prosser to win.

So we are told, by Kathy Nickolaus’ personal computer, and “special software”, and as a result of her “human error” that Prosser “won” by some 7,000 votes in Waukesha County.
Statistically this means that 14% of the people who voted for Obama, defected to Prosser and only 1% of McCain voters defected to Kloppenburg. This scenario results in the “accepted” Prosser win by 7,000 votes in Waukesha County.

Just to show how small a 7,000 vote margin is, if only 1% fewer people had defected to Prosser thus lowering 14% to 13% – Kloppenburg wins by 9,000 votes.

The graph shows how Kloppenburg’s expected share of the 2008 Obama vote, effects Prosser’s vote. He quickly loses his vote, even though we are assuming he is getting a full 97% of the returning McCain vote. Remember that Waukesha is one of the most GOP counties in the Wisconsin. The election “results” suggest that over 12 of every 100 people that voted for Obama in the Presidential election, switched and voted for Prosser last Spring.
Sound unlikely?

Richard’s analysis

Two more simple Waukesha graphs.

Effect of Obama voter turnout on Prosser margin assuming Kloppenburg had 90% of …Obama voters and Prosser 97% of McCain voters.

The simple “takeaway”
1) is that in ALL realistic scenarios (Kloppenburg share at least 75% of Obama voters)

2) minimum 49% Obama turnout, Kloppenburg cuts Prosser’s margin by more than his 7500 votes – and wins the election.

And this is JUST Waukesha. Should we add more fuel to the fire and do the same analysis for Milwaukee County?

Suspicious numbers suggest robbing from Peter to pay Paul…..or Kloppenburg to boost Prosser.

HINT from Karen Smith (of Election Integrity group on face book)

“…ward by ward analyisis does show previous Democrat voters going Republican in the Supreme Court election..City of Milwaukee wards 160 thru 181 had a total of 330 recorded Republican votes in the gov race but reported 1015 Republican votes in the Supreme Court race.”

Richard Charnin’s blog

The Bottom Line

Kathy Nickolaus receives a salary as County Clerk of Wakesha County….and all we get as proof, analysis, or transparency of her “found vote” is, “whoooooops.”

Richard Charnin lives in Florida and has analyzed elections for years. He has written extensively on his findings and has worked and posted all of his professional work on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election out of a deep concern for election integrity in the United States</strong.

He remains convinced that the Supreme Court Election in Wisconsin was stolen by Prosser.

Who do YOU trust?


5 thoughts on “Waukesha, Which Numbers would you Bet On?

  1. I have a lot of trouble buying the conclusions: “The assumption is that just 50% of those that voted in the 2008 Presidential election returned to the polls in Waukesha to vote in the Supreme Court Election.” is a huge, *huge* assumption. Why would people who showed up to vote for Obama or McCain in the highest turnout election for 40 years show up for an off-year non-partisan election _in_exactly_equal_proportions_? These 2 1/2 year old Presidential race apples are not State Supreme Court race oranges.

    There was certainly plenty of partisan backing for Prosser and Kloppenburg and plenty of attempts to portray it as a partisan race but that doesn’t make it so, and furthermore does not make it so evenly across the board. Incumbent Supreme Court justices have historically enjoyed a huge advantage over challengers. There is no reason given to believe the assumptions behind Charnin’s figures to be true.

    Charnin’s analysis also notes that “A stack of 50 consecutive Prosser ballots were found in Verona where Kloppenburg won 75% of the recorded vote; the probability is effectively absolute zero (0.25^50).” There are several issues with this: firstly, Kloppenburg won the Town of Verona 485-320, 60.2% to 39.7%, and the City of Verona 2,392-1,208, 66.4% to 33.6%. The 75% figure is thus just plain wrong. The “effectively absolute zero (0.25^50)” figure is based not only upon the wrong number but also the hidden assumption that votes are cast in a completely random order when in fact there will be much correlation between votes in chronological order since spouses and families will tend to vote the same way at the same time; those who work certain shifts at certain places likewise. The hidden assumption is wrong too.

    Even if the 75% figure and the hidden assumption were true, the calculation would *still* be wrong since (roughly speaking) there are more than 3,551 ways for a string of 50 for Prosser to happen (from vote #1 through #50, or from vote #2 through #51 … or from vote #3,551 through #3,600). Is a string of 50 for Prosser in Verona implausible? Without some knowledge of how their distribution correlates with time, one cannot say, and Charnin does not attempt to find out before using poor statistics and big assumptions to draw conclusions about election fraud.

    Of course none of this means that there was no fraud, nor does it change the fact that Waukesha County residents of all political stripes should have their torches and pitchforks out calling for Nickolaus’ resignation for her inability to add and whose opaque procedures nearly cost 14,000 of them their say in April’s election.


  2. Pingback: Waukesha Investigation NEWS at LAST

    • Geoff:

      I suggest you look at the True Vote Model for Waukesha.

      The BASE CASE assumption of equal turnout is based on the fact that there were 125,000 votes in Waukesha Supreme Court election which was 53.7% of 233,000 votes recorded in the 2008 presidential election. Keep in mind that the equal turnout percentage of Obama and McCain voters was just the base case assumption. Look at the turnout sensitivity table. If Obama voter turnout was 45% and McCain 55%, then Prosser won Waukesha by 44,000 votes. His recorded margin was 59,000. The 15,000 discrepancy would easily eclipse Prosser’s overall 7,300 statewide margin and Kloppenburg would be the winner by 8,000 votes. The conservative assumption is that Kloppenburg won 90% of returning Obama voters and 5% of returning McCain voters (a 5% net defection to Prosser). In addition, we assume a 70-30% Prosser/Kloppenburg split in new voters. Kloppenburg wins the election with 1) a 5% net returning voter defection to Prosser, 2) a 10% higher McCain voter turnout and 3) a 40% Prosser margin in new voters. That’s why I always include sensitivity analysis tables – to avoid having to rely on a single point estimate. There is no question that Kloppenburg won the True Vote. She was robbed – big time.


  3. Geoff:

    Thanks for the correction on the Verona vote shares. Let’s calculate the probability that Prosser would have 50 consecutive ballots in a city where he had just 33% of the vote.

    The probability of this occurrence = 0.33^50= 8.42747E-25
    or 1 in 1,186,596,344,543,190,000,000,000

    I’ll leave it at that and not bother to address the points you made regarding families voting together.




  4. Pingback: Election Merry-Go-Round

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s