AUDIT USA Americans United for Democracy, Integrity and Transparency in Elections
  • Elections belong to the people
  • Ballot Images Project
    • Project Overview
    • Understanding Ballot Images and Related Documents
    • Get Involved
    • North Carolina Voting Systems
    • Legal Action
    • For Candidates and Campaign Leaders
    • States/Counties that Use Ballot Images from Paper Ballots
    • Documentation and Manuals for ES&S DS850’s and DS200’s
  • About
    • About AUDIT Elections USA
    • Our Team
  • Media
    • Media Inquiries
    • News
    • Archive
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Elections belong to the people
  • Ballot Images Project
    • Project Overview
    • Understanding Ballot Images and Related Documents
    • Get Involved
    • North Carolina Voting Systems
    • Legal Action
    • For Candidates and Campaign Leaders
    • States/Counties that Use Ballot Images from Paper Ballots
    • Documentation and Manuals for ES&S DS850’s and DS200’s
  • About
    • About AUDIT Elections USA
    • Our Team
  • Media
    • Media Inquiries
    • News
    • Archive
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Contact
March 11, 2016  |  By John Brakey In Election Fraud, Voter Disenfranchisement

MI Primary: Bernie did much better than the recorded share indicates

Michigan Primary:  Sanders did better than his recorded vote indicates

Richard Charnin (with John Brakey)
March 11, 2016

Officially, Sanders had 590,386  votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%). This analysis indicates that Sanders did much better than his recorded vote, just as he did in Massachusetts.  As in Boston, urban areas Wayne County (Detroit) and Oakland County apparently voted for Clinton. 

Once again, we have multiple confirmation indicating fraud: Cumulative vote shares, preliminary exit poll, absentee vote anomalies and other anecdotal information.

Will we see the same fraud indicators in FL, OH, IL, MO and NC on March 15?

It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They just report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor.

Sanders had 56% at the 600,000 Cumulative vote share mark and nearly 56% of 200,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia voting machines. He led 52.1-45.9% in the unadjusted exit poll.

Clinton had an astounding 75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes. And she had 51.2% of 336,000 ES&S machine votes. Both of these numbers are highly suspect.

Clinton won  Massachusetts   by 1.4%, but hand counted precincts favored  Sanders by 17%, and 68 Towns hand-counted 2.7% of votes cast.

See the rest at Richard Charnin’s Site

Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 6.27.24 PM
See the interactive version of this graph here.
Please share
Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton Michigan
Previous StoryAlthough Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17%
Next StoryStolen Democracy

Related Articles

  • NYTnewsalerts
    The New York Times Campaigns on Behalf of Hillary Clinton, Against Donald Trump, While Ignoring Bernie Sanders, Denying Election Fraud and Perpetuating Myth of Russian DNC Hack
  • Rose
    Bernie Sanders Actually Won Nationwide by 15%: Lawsuit Update

Leave your comment Cancel Reply

(will not be shared)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search This Site

Categories

Stay Connected with AUDIT-USA

Donate to Support AUDIT-USA

Blog Calendar

March 2016
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Feb   Apr »

Recent Posts

  • North Carolina Faced with Unverifiable Elections
  • California To County Election Officials: You Must Preserve Digital Ballot Images from Voting Machines
  • Government Technology: Florida’s Election Hardware Troubles Are Nothing New
  • BREAKING NEWS: TRANSPARENCY ADVOCATES SCORE VICTORY IN FLORIDA
  • Here’s How the Country Could Actually Secure Our Elections If Politicians Actually Cared to Try
  • Home
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • Blog
  • Media Inquiries
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms

Copyright ©2018-19 AUDIT-USA. All Rights Reserved

en_USEnglish
en_USEnglish