While I agree with the gist of what I think you’re saying - that election fraud isn’t anywhere near a deciding factor, especially in Presidential elections - I don’t think it actually matters.

There is a large number of people in the US who believe that fraud is a big enough problem for it to change the outcome. That leads to loss of confidence in the election system, which in turn makes for a far more volatile political climate in the country.

That is in and of itself sufficient justification for us to take a very serious look at the system and consider implementing stricter practices. The actual goal here isn’t to prevent all fraud, it’s to ensure that the political process itself is trusted by the people.

Can you clarify the claim you're making? The 87 Chicago mayoral election is within living memory for over half of eligible voters in America. Do you think election procedure (which varies significantly as it is under the sole jurisdiction of the governments of states like Virginia) has uniformly improved to the extent that fraud like that, or even just a fraction of that scale, is completely impossible?

Can there actually be any evidence when the process is designed to not be very transparent or examinable from the outside? Election security and transparency should be a priority for all parties because of how foundational it is. The lack of evidence doesn’t mean much when it isn’t publicly auditable.