How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?
Position‹3 of 3: Claims that the US election is rigged are not accurate at all
Argument‹3 of 4›: Electoral fraud is extremely rare

Claims that the US election is rigged are not accurate at all. The claims of the Trump campaign regarding electoral fraud are often made without much evidence, and are therefore questionable at best.

The argument

The claims of the Trump campaign are often made without much evidence, and are therefore questionable at best. Trump's claim about inaccurate absentee ballots ended up being due to a technology malfunction as a high-speed scanner stopped working. This meant that more than 250,000 absentee ballots, for those not voting in person in their state, sent out were inaccurate. This was simply due to an error rather than targeted electoral fraud.

Premises

[P1]Claims of a rigged election, such as those from the Trump campaign, are typically made without much evidence and are therefore questionable. [P2] Specific allegations, like inaccurate absentee ballots, turned out to stem from a technology malfunction (a failed high-speed scanner) rather than targeted fraud. [C] Therefore, because actual electoral fraud is extremely rare, claims that the US election is rigged are not accurate.

Counter-arguments

The Trump campaign has often claimed that increased postal voting due to the coronavirus pandemic will lead to tremendous electoral fraud. His campaign has claimed that voters may receive inaccurate absentee ballots (ballots for those voting outside of their state). Trump may be able to declare victory on election night, based on the tally of in-person voting while many postal ballots would still need to be counted in key states. The election could in fact be rigged for Trump as the public may be confused about the election, and Trump may be able to challenge postal ballots (and even throw some out in key states).

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The absence of evidence for particular allegations is not the same as evidence that fraud is extremely rare, which is what the conclusion needs. That a campaign's claims went unsupported shows the claims failed, not that the underlying rate is low — a finding that would rest on audits, recount data or prosecution records, none of which the premise supplies. [Rejecting P2] One resolved incident cannot carry a general conclusion. The premise takes a single mis-sent absentee mailing traced to a scanner failure and generalises from it to every allegation, and it never reaches the counter's actual concern, which is not fraud at all but the sequencing of in-person and postal counts and what a campaign might do in the interval.