I know I’m like a dog with a bone, but I just can’t shake off the feeling that the Kentucky governorship was stolen from the Democrats.
I have heard people say that Jack Conway wasn’t a good candidate, but this doesn’t take away from the fact, as Addicting Info, so eloquently put it…
The unofficial results would suggest that voters favored democratic candidates for Secretary of State (democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes) and Attorney General (democrat Andy Bashir), but then decided that they wanted a full blown right-wing nut-job like Matt Bevin for governor.
It just doesn’t make sense. Addicting Info also has this to add…
Another elections watchdog, Richard Charnin, who holds a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics just published preliminary results of his analysis of the cumulative vote shares in the Kentucky governor’s race, finding that the “cumulative vote shares indicate likely fraud.”
In explaining the analysis process, Charnin wrote:
“I downloaded precinct vote data for the largest 25 KY counties and five smaller counties (view the spreadsheet and the graphs below). Downloading all 120 counties is a time consuming process, so I expect to download about 20 more over the next few days. The objective is to view the effects of county/precinct size on the cumulative vote share trend. Since the largest counties are usually heavily Democratic, the consistent pattern of Republican Governor candidates gaining share from small to large precincts is counter-intuitive. On the other hand, there is virtually no change in vote shares in smaller, heavily GOP counties.”
(View the whole analysis, with a number of charts and graphs on Richard Charnin’s blog here.)
Intrigued, I took a trip over to Richard Charnin’s blog.
Questions have been raised as to whether the number of elections analyzed is sufficient to draw conclusions. Given that approximately 20 million votes in 13 elections have been analyzed, the results are statistically significant. The analysis is confirmed by other forensic methods (True Vote Model, exit polls) for competitive and non-competitive races.
The analysis of cumulative vote shares (CVS) has revealed a consistent pattern. It is a well-known fact that Democrats are the majority in highly populated urban locations; the largest precincts are usually Democratic. Republicans are heavily represented in rural areas. But in scores of state elections there has been an increase in cumulative Republican vote shares in larger precincts. This anomaly has been noted by PhDs in Kansas and Vanderbilt University.
The basic premise is that Republican increase in cumulative precinct vote shares is counter-intuitive since the Democrats do much better in urban and suburban counties than in rural areas where the GOP is dominant. Precincts in Urban areas contain more voters than rural areas.
I am no statistician, but if I understand this correctly, the GOP are stealing votes from the predominantly suburban areas and leaving the rural (GOP) areas alone. This seems to happen after the cumulative vote share at the 25% mark. As Charmin notes about the 2014 election…
A Cumulative Vote Share (CVA) analysis of the 2014 Massachusetts Governor election showed greater discrepancies than the close races in WI, FL, MD and IL. CVS analysis indicated that election fraud was likely in each election. All showed the same counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares. Democrats are strong in large, vote-rich urban areas and Republicans dominate in small, rural areas.
The beauty of CVS analysis is that it is easy to understand. Given the basic premise that Democrats usually do much better than Republicans in heavily populated counties, then we would not expect Republicans to gain share as precinct votes are sorted and summed from the smallest to the largest precincts. This is a red flag and indicates that the election was likely fraudulent.
Note that cumulative vote share at the 25% mark is the basis for calculating the change to the final vote. At 25% the Democrats typically lead by a solid margin, especially in heavily populated counties. But it’s all downhill from there.
Fast forward on to Kentucky.
A Democratic stronghold, Jefferson is the largest county in KY with 192,391 recorded votes. At the 25% mark (48,000) votes, Conway led in Jefferson by 66-30%. He won the county by 58-39%. The 17% change in margin lowered his vote margin from 69,000 to 31,000. But there may have been vote flipping from zero to 48,000. Conway led by 70-27% after the first 11,500 votes.
There were 69,953 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, Conway led by 60-34%. He won the county by 55-40%. The 11% change lowered his margin from 18,000 to 10,000 votes.
There were 31,453 recorded votes. At the 25% mark, they were tied at 47%. Bevin won the county by 57-39%. The 18% change increased Bevins’ margin from 80 to 5700 votes. Conway led by 53-41% after the first 2,200 votes (7% mark).
Do you see what is happening here? Cos I do! And it fucking stinks.