Read it again. Tell me the the part where there needs to be a conspiracy theory. Getting you accept evidence is not even on my agenda. You won't even acknowledge that there is evidence unless it is definitive, irrefutable proof--and that's clearly giving you the benefit of the doubt.
"Because all evidence is contested by opposing parties, ignored, or obstructed. Getting your stamp of approval is not my point. My point, which I made several times already, is that the election system needs to inspire faith in its constituents. You made an appeal to an authority that has history of deceit and misrepresentation. You called that a conspiracy theory.
So yeah, good on you to circle all the way back to my original assessment. I have no faith that such an election has happened. I don't have to prove that. Elections are a matter of faith, and what is more transparent than ever before, is the total lack of it. Electing a president who promised to weed out corruption in a rigged system, as absurd as that was, was tantamount to admitting that the system is bankrupt on its credibility. You want to try to recover that from that with Biden? Ok. Nice choice."
No theory here. Just a lack of belief, which is why I don't vote and why I don't think your vote matters.
Putting all faith into one person to 'weed out corruption in a rigged system' might have been too much to ask for to begin with.
Here is how its set up roughly. Lobbying (corruption within certain confines) is seen as good. Because it informs the political class on 'matters of importance' from the perspective of the interests that also matter most to everyone living a 'decent life'. "If corp is happy, everyone is happy."
That contract kind of got broken along the way. But 'getting rid of corruption' - isnt going to solve the underlying issue. Its kind of a 'diminishing returns' issue. So of course as an institution you need to be held accountable, and for that you need transparency, and thats the 'job' of certain (underfinanced) NGOs, but if you get rid of 'all corruption' nothing much is gained.
So system is set up to allow for some amount of corruption (/collusion), but 'if it gets too much' and people notice, you are getting voted out.
In the US you now had pretty much only 'change' elections for some time now - but if they arent 'decisive' enough (you also getting the power in senate), or if people decide to f*ck over a certain sentiment (Obama, once in office - everything was 'retain the status quo') things stay the same. Even moreso - if there is no accepted vision of what should change - people wont even attempt it.
So two points.
1. People wanted to be like Trump, and liked that he told them, you could do it, just believe in me, and I'll get rid of corruption. Were lead completely astray. Putting all power in one person, and 'hoping for the best' is about the worst thing you can do.
If you want political change in a democracy, you dont do it by 'voting' you do it by coming up with a compelling program - that makes sense, that people would like - and you make it popular. If the best you could come up with is 'drain the swamp' (and 'build a wall' and...), you might be SOL on creating a working society.
(The entirety of capitalism is about creating 'rails' for human self interest and the will to not care about others, before caring about yourself. If your perspective is 'eliminate all the bad parts of peoples power drive' and you are left with all the good parts, you might be naive.)
2. Democracy can be seen as 'merely' a system for peaceful transition of power. If people dont vote - they passively condone the status quo, if not voting is all they do. If they try to 'delegitimize' the current system, than there always is the question 'against what alternative'. And if there is no alternative ('party', societal vision, ...) even elections with only 40% of people turning up for the vote can be seen as 'perfectly legitimate'.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections