http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04514.html

The list has grown from five to thirteen. I hope it grows, and the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the Progressive Caucus sign on. Kucinich's absence is puzzling. Less so, Nancy Pelosi who's probably more concerned about her leadership turf prerogatives and not antagonizing the Repugs.

OK--BUT -Does the writer @ Buzzflash understand that the GAO has decided to investigate?

Bina, just so you know, the GAO has no authority over changing the election outcome or handing out indictments on account of suspected voter fraud. That authority rests with each individual state and their Justice Department (GAO said so themselves).

sorry for any misunderstanding, here's excerpts from which I got my info:

Congress' investigative agency cautioned, however, that it isn't authorized to take action if irregularities are found.
GAO spokeswoman Susan Becker said the investigation isn't a direct response to a recent request by several Democratic members of the House, who asked the GAO to investigate. The GAO was already planning to look at systemic issues related to the elections process after the Nov. 2. election. But given the concern expressed by more than a dozen members of Congress and many voters, the GAO will look at some of the specific problems reported. These include complaints by some voters who said they used touch-screen voting machines that recorded votes for candidates they didn't pick.
GAO's Becker said the agency doesn't have a date yet by which it will complete its investigation, but it is highly unlikely that a report will be completed before members of the Electoral College meet Dec. 13 to cast their presidential votes.

That pretty much sums it up. At most, I speculate there will be reforms for election 2008. Again, something I'm not entirely sure of, but have they even FINISHED counting the provisional ballots in Ohio? I recall Sir Blackwell saying it wouldn't start for 11 days, which should have meant it started on november 13th, but now it's already nov. 28th. Coupled with the fact that only 75% of the provisionals were deemed valid this time versus the 90% in 2000, its all the more likely we will be under Bush's rule for 4 more years.

Just to add a little more to the excerpts posted above:

"The Government Accountability Office usually begins investigations in response to specific requests from Congress, but the agency's head, Comptroller General David Walker, said the GAO acted on its own because of the many comments it received about ballot counting.

He cautioned that the GAO cannot enforce the law if voting irregularities are found, noting that state officials regulate elections and the Justice Department prosecutes voting rights violations and election fraud."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOT...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

perhaps dr. left, I'd want that just as much as most people on this board. I don't see that happening before December 13th, tho, when the state representatives meet to cast the electoral votes, meaning unless we have a Watergate-like event sometime in the next two years, it's Bush country til 2008

is that right? You think any Democrat senators would sign a petition protesting results of this election when there was a clear victory by Bush (unofficial, but officially undisputed at the moment)? They didn't do it in 2000, when it was a razor-thin margin stopped by the Supreme Court, why would they do it when the gap is bigger now? Besides, the Ohio recount hasn't started yet, and its' obvious why: Sir Blackwell wants to make sure he waits as long as possible since a statewide recount of Ohio CAN'T be done in 7 days (Dec.6th-13th), so unless they get some kind of extension, nothing will change. Democrats could try to say a time limit CANNOT be posed on the constitution, in that every vote must count, but they won't argue for it. You'll see 3rd party candidates and Dem. supporters doing it, but you will never see the guys you vote for actually do it themselves.

[QUOTE="Dumber than dirt"]is that right? You think any Democrat senators would sign a petition protesting results of this election when there was a clear victory by Bush (unofficial, but officially undisputed at the moment)? They didn't do it in 2000, when it was a razor-thin margin stopped by the Supreme Court, why would they do it when the gap is bigger now? [/QUOTE]

Yeah that's right, why because this time there is proof that there is a theft. Clear victory where do you see a clear victory, I saw what they want us to see, but as the smoke clears away it is becoming more and more obvious that this election was stolen. Not only this time two senators were in that race, and if they have proof of a theft you bet your ass they will sign a petition protesting results and they only need ONE signature.

[QUOTE-"Doom and Gloom"]Besides, the Ohio recount hasn't started yet, and its' obvious why: Sir Blackwell wants to make sure he waits as long as possible since a statewide recount of Ohio CAN'T be done in 7 days (Dec.6th-13th), so unless they get some kind of extension, nothing will change. [/QUOTE]

Again oh dupped one, doesn't have to be completed in 7 days, but nice try, they have until January, and yes the recount can be done in 7 days, they already have volunteers lined up to do so.....


[QUOTE]Democrats could try to say a time limit CANNOT be posed on the constitution, in that every vote must count, but they won't argue for it. You'll see 3rd party candidates and Dem. supporters doing it, but you will never see the guys you vote for actually do it themselves.[/QUOTE]

Guess we'll see won't we.

'Doc

sorry, I looked up your info, I was mistaken, dec. 13th is not a deadline, my bad, was not trying to spread disinformation. I am a Democrat like most people on this board, but I find it hard to believe they'll sign a petition this time around when they did not in 2000, when there was ALSO evidence of theft. Even aside from the fact that they will do a recount, what IF bush is still the winner after the entire recount? Again I call on ANYONE on this board to say EXACTLY how many provisional ballots have been certified as valid. I just saw Ken Blackwell on CNN, claiming it was 80%. Others have said 70%. We all know 2000 was 90%. If 80% is correct, is it well-over 140,000 votes (the approximate margin Kerry lost by)? If it's BARELY over that, I don't think it would change the outcome, since I don't believe Kerry would get 100% of the provisionals. Plus, HOW will you recount the electronic tallies? Will the Democrats contest the stupid ass last-minute law that provisional ballots cannot be counted if they were cast outside a voter's designated precinct, arguing that provisionals are valid IF the election official did not direct the voter to the correct precinct? What about the district where the press was completely shut out of the counting process, on grounds of 'national security terrorism threat', now discredited by homeland security and the FBI, possibly indicating ballots were being destroyed? I'm in no way trying to spread false stuff, I would just like to see some answers to these questions. I feel they deal specifically with the problem, and you sure as hell won't get specific answers from the politicians, Democrat or Republican.

So is there an update to this? If I understood the first post correctly, a sitting Senator has to request the recount also, not just Representatives?

Senators Kerry and Edwards? Where are you? Kennedy? Durbin?

Yes, you need at least one signature from the House of the Senate. In Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, one of the FEW correct facts in the movie, he showed how in 2000, Gore was going to certify the election, and several House of Rep. members contested, but in vain, since they did not have a single signature from a Senator, not a Republican senator, nor an 'for the people' Democrat Senator. Given that there is overwhelming evidence Gore DID win that election, and not a single Democratic Senator signed the petition, I really, really doubt that would happen this time around, unless Democrats knew in advance Republicans were going to use fraudulent techniques, and they are compiling their proof together right now. Sadly that is a pipe dream, as it is BEV HARRIS, NOT THE KERRY TEAM that is finding all the vote fraud. I've said it twice, and I'll say it again: Democrats had a whole F#@$#$#N year to listen to people who talked about vote fraud, but they didn't, either coz they thought they were smarter than us supporters, because vote frauding was crazy liberal conspiracy talk, or because they didn't believe Republicans would stoop so low. The Democrats clear' disregard for computer specialists and Bev Harris really, really disillusioned me, and made me realize that it's people like you on this board that will contest it, NOT the Democrats themselves. I would have felt much better if it was the party that LISTENED to your complaints and THEN decided whether your claims had any solid ground or not, but its' not. It's elitist BS, thinking "hohhoahahaha u little voter what can you possibly know that I, a great public servant cannot?" That's exactly how John Kerry struck me throughout his entire campaign. Him and the rest of the Democrats inability to listen to us and our VALID claims about vote fraud stemmed from a condescending fact: they WERE potentially the only party to take Bush out of the White House. If you were against Bush, Kerry was your ONLY choice. I feel like instead of using that to his advantage, Kerry campaigned with his head up in space, thinking "I am the ultimate powerful man, I am the ONLY one who can beat Bush, I will do what I WANT". But as we and Kerry now know, it's not enough in an election to be the only alternative to the worst president in history, you GOTTA listen to people and you GOTTA clearly say what the incumbent is doing wrong, what you stand for, and what you believe you can do to make it better. Democrats can't do either anymore.