The logic around these election fraud posts usually goes something like this:

1. something "suspicious" is presented

2. only conclusion must be election fraud, no explanations to the contrary is explored or accepted

3. go to step 1, preferably before the "MSM" debunks the first instance.

You can try this yourself: try to find any election fraud claim from 2+ weeks ago that turned out to be "legit".

A glaringly obvious logic fail is “any apparent fraudulent behaviour must be on behalf of the winner” - er, no - it would be much more likely for the intended benefit of the less ethically sound candidate.

(Which one that would be in this case is an exercise left for the reader)

How can I try it myself? Nobody is giving me access to the information I need to actually draw an informed conclusion.

I found it impossible to verify claims like this: https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1334995992102506498

All that seems reasonable to do is to wait for all court decisions.