flat rail road car

Iapos;ll admit that I donapos;t fully understand the point behind all this "voter fraud" nonsense. What exactly is the issue?

First, a couple of general observations. "Voter fraud" isnapos;t really an issue unless itapos;s supposed that "voter fraud" will tend to skew one way or the other. That is, if a statistically-even number of fraudulent votes are cast among each of the available candidates, then their net effect on the outcome of an election is nil. So any person supposing that "voter fraud" is a distinct evil that needs to be fought must have an underlying supposition about how those fraudulent votes are likely to fall. Theyapos;re not just concerned about fraudulent votes but fraudulent votes over-representing a particular political affiliation.

Also, we ought to remember that there is some "margin of error" endemic to the election process. As a technical matter, itapos;s unavoidable that some ballots will be miscounted or unrecorded. Thereapos;s also an unavoidable factor of simple human error in recording oneapos;s own elective choices; in other words, a personapos;s actual preferences with respect to candidates may be misrepresented by their own failure to use the voting machinery correctly, without their being aware of it. "Voter fraud" also is a factor in that lack of precision. Relative to those other factors, "voter fraud" is only a concern insofar as it eclipses those concerns, say, or in some sense poses an issue that those other fudge-factors do not, in terms of our election-ideals. For example, if "voter fraud" is an issue because it will tend to skew election results in one direction, and we care about election results accurately reflecting the aggregate choices of the voting public, then "voter fraud" should be an issue only to the extent that other sources of error are an issue. If we donapos;t care about, say, a 0.01 skew in election results due to miscounting, then why should we care about a 0.01 skew due to "voter fraud"?

[Note, also, that the notion of "error" with respect to election results presupposes a political theory that describes the appropriate relationship of elections to self-governance. If we were to suppose, for example, that a democratic government ought to reflect the precise aggregated will of the people, we might care a great deal that our election results be as accurate as possible, as measured against the preferences of the people (and not just those who vote). But if our political theory is not particularly troubled by election margins that are within the "margin of error" introduced into the process by technical and human errors, then it would seem that our political theory requires only that election results track the popular will, broadly and in general. Under such a theory, if popular sentiment is strongly one way or the other, then our election process should be sensitive to that and reflect that strong sentiment, but if popular sentiment is largely ambivalent, then the particular result reached is relatively unimportant. Given the relative under-emphasis on voter participation that we see in this country (save as a device to achieve particular electoral results) and the lack of a sense that close election results present a democratic problem, Iapos;m inclined to believe that our society implicitly subscribes to this sort of political theory.]

Given that the most outspoken opponents of "voter fraud" appear to be conservative Republicans, we might then suppose that these Republicans believe that (1) "voter fraud" tends to favor Democratic candidates and that (2) "voter fraud" happens frequently enough to make a relevant difference in election results in a way that simple error does not. Is there any evidence that either of these beliefs is the case? If not, we might rightly wonder what really motivates these Republican activists.

(Iapos;m not just being na�ve about the issue; I intend to take up the notion of "voter fraud" more directly in a subsequent post. This is enough for now.)
flat rail road car, flat racks, flat rack dimensions, flat rack containers.