How Walker Stole the Recall Election

“Unusually High” vote count in rural areas

Many rural counties showed a sharp shift to the right in the June 5 Recall election that left many people scratching their heads, “How is this possible?”. I am from Crawford County, and like so many other rural counties that voted strongly democrat in recent elections, Crawford County went for Walker by +100 votes. This was a curiosity that sent me to the County Clerk’s office in Prairie Du Chein to get a look at more information that was not displayed on the election web site, and I learned the election materials had already been send back to the machine vendor, Command Central, before the time prescribed by state statutes. You can read any number of the recent posts on this blog to learn more about the experience of trying to chase a greased pig with one arm tied behind your back.

Today, I want to talk to you about how the June 5 Recall election was stolen. Usually, Republicans could “count on” Kathy Nicholaus, the County Clerk of Waukesha County to “find” 7000 votes as she did in the Supreme Court Election. Since then, her little trick of writing her own programing and keeping it on her personal computer, has cost the tax payers of that county a quarter of a million dollars to reprogram the software for counting votes. Kathy was under the magnifying glass so a new plan was badly needed.

The problem with figuring out how and where votes were flipped isn’t immediately apparent. It takes days and weeks of looking at the “scratch your head” incidences, and pulling them all together for a larger picture. Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was one of the first to report the “rural shift”, eleven days after the election, in his June 16 article

In high-stakes Wisconsin elections, it often feels like the fiercest fighting occurs along the Milwaukee to Madison corridor.

That’s where the state’s three biggest counties are: Milwaukee, Dane and Waukesha. It’s where the state’s capital and largest city are. It’s where the geographic base of each party is. And it’s the most combative, media-intensive, politically polarized part of Wisconsin.

But that’s not where Gov. Scott Walker carved out his historic recall victory.

In geographic terms, the big story of the state’s June 5 election was Walker’s striking performance outside the Milwaukee and Madison media markets.

In demographic terms, it was Walker’s rural landslide. Craig Gilert Article in WSJ

Little did he know how he had put his finger on the pulse of monster whose tentacles curled into the most unsuspecting villages and hamlets of the Wisconsin countryside. I was personally attacked by this creature in the halls of the County Clerks office in Prairie Du Chein and was caught between releasing the county from an open records request to hold memory cartridges with official vote tally or held responsible for enraging the taxpayers with a $12,400 bill by the private corporation Command Central.

The Recall vote was not stolen by the “usual suspects” in Waukesha, Delafeild, or Milwaukee but in the rural counties like Crawford, Buffalo, Adams, and Trempealeau. The steal was not to find 7,000 votes in one city, but to chip and chisel a few votes here and there from rural areas throughout the state. It would take a statistical genius to uncover and present the numbers to expose this pick-a-little-hack-a-little strategy. Little did they know about the statistician extraordinaire, Richard Charnin.

Richard, who is not even from Wisconsin but resides in Florida, began working. You see, he had predicted the outcome of the June 5 election with his numbers on May 26 or eleven days before the election. That’s pretty good.

True Vote Model

The base case assumption in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model is that Obama had a 60% vote share is conservative. He had 63.3% in the Wisconsin exit poll (2545 respondents) but only a 56.2% recorded share, far below the 2.4% margin of error. There is a virtual 100% probability that Obama’s True share exceeded 60%. In other words, the 2008 election was extremely fraudulent, but not enough to cause Obama to lose.

Unlike final national and state exit polls that are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote and implicitly assume zero fraud, the True Vote Model is based on a feasible estimated turnout of previous election voters and best vote share estimates of returning and new voters.

The model calculates various scenarios (“sensitivity analysis”) of 2008 election voter turnout in 2012 based on the 2008 a) recorded vote, b) unadjusted exit poll or 3) estimated True Vote.

What does this portend for the recall?
Three scenarios:

1) Fraud: Walker wins by a similar margin as he did in 2010 (125,000 votes)
2) Fraud: But not enough to steal the election. Barrett wins by 70,000.
3) No fraud. Barrett wins by at least 160,000.

The latest statistical analysis from Richard Charnin

This is the latest statistical analysis of election fraud from Richard Charnin (pictured right) who predicted what the fraud factor would look like ten days before the June 5 election. Now he is creating a model which will boil it down to the Municipality:

I just created a Muni Recall True Vote model based on the elections.xlsx data. It uses the 2008 Presidential and 2012 Recall recorded votes. This is just a quick, first-cut. I will be adding improvements over the next day or two. Richard Charnin’s latest Municipal Recall True Vote Model

Look at the the Recall Results by minicipality

I took the liberty of taking a screen shot of Crawford County as seen below. (Richard frowns on this but I wanted to give you an idea of what you will find for your ward, town, or municipality when you look at the spread sheet. This is number art revealing the sheer beauty of statistical analysis!

The first shot shows the votes for Obama and McCan in the 2008 presidential election.

So below are the cut and pasted screen shots from Crawford County.


The second shot shows the reported vote for Walker and Barrett and the blue column shows the percentage of the Barrett vote.

The third shot shows the numbers you will not find in your county clerk’s office. It shows the True Vote, as described above, in the yellow column. The blue column shows he voter turn out that would be necessary to arrive at those numbers. The last “pink” column shows the percentage in shift that would be necessary from those who voted for Obama in ’08 but showed up to vote for Walker on June 5. For instance, you see that over one third of the folks who voted for Obama in ’08 in Bridgeport or Lynxville would have needed to defect and vote for Walker on June 5.

If you can rationalize that shift, look at Ferryville where nearly half the of voters defected from Obama to Walker.

You can look at any ward, municipality, or village in Wisconsin and prove to yourself how the recorded vote in the June 5 Recall election is not only “hinky” or “smelly” – it is not statistically possible.

Prove election fraud for yourself. Have Fun!

True Vote Model by Municipality – Defection from Obama’s ’08 vote to Walker in Recall Election

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “How Walker Stole the Recall Election

  1. Pingback: Links 7/21/12 « naked capitalism

  2. Pingback: Links 7/21/12 | Financial News 24

  3. Pingback: The Walker Recall Municipal Database: A True Vote Model « Richard Charnin's Blog

  4. Pingback: What ever happened to JOHN DOE? Oligarchs vs. Wisconsin | fitzwalkerstan

  5. Pingback: How to Report CEO Welfare Fraud | fitzwalkerstan

  6. Pingback: The Hunt for “John Doe” | fitzwalkerstan

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s