How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?

Some individuals vote more than once to distort the outcome of the election

Question: How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?
Position1 of 3›: Claims that the US election is rigged are very accurate
Argument‹3 of 6›: Some individuals vote more than once to distort the outcome of the election

Claims that the US election is rigged are very accurate. Some individuals vote more than once, either by visiting multiple polling stations or voting both in-person and by post.

The argument

It is common for voting rights groups and political campaigners to provide transport to take voters to the polls. Their buses tend to target areas where residents are more likely to support a particular candidate or political party. Repeat trips may be made meaning that voters are taken to multiple polling stations in order to vote multiple times. Some people are also able to vote more than once via both absentee ballots and in person.

Premises

[P1]Campaigners and voting groups bus voters to the polls, targeting areas that favour a particular party. [P2] Repeat trips can take the same voters to multiple polling stations, and some people are able to vote both by absentee ballot and in person. [P3] This allows individuals to cast more than one vote, distorting the outcome. [C] Therefore, because some individuals vote more than once, claims that the US election is rigged are accurate.

Counter-arguments

There is not a significant number of prosecutions or convictions for voter fraud based on people voting multiple times at different polling stations. Numerous USA-wide and state-wide studies over the years have not revealed evidence of major, widespread electoral fraud in the form of postal ballots.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Providing transport to the polls is lawful and is organised by parties, unions, churches and non-partisan groups alike. That buses go where a campaign expects support describes ordinary organising, and nothing in the premise connects it to a second ballot being cast. [Rejecting P2] The mechanism does not survive contact with how voting works. A voter appears on one jurisdiction's roll and is marked off on voting; requesting an absentee ballot flags the record, so an in-person attempt is challenged or set aside as provisional, and duplicates are generally caught in reconciliation. The premise asserts that repeat trips occur without offering a case in which they did. [Rejecting P3] Scale is what the conclusion needs and what is absent. Statewide and nationwide audits over many years have found double voting in the low tens of instances against tens of millions of ballots, and prosecutions are correspondingly rare — a rate that cannot move an outcome, still less establish that an election is rigged.