The state legislatures in one or more red states could have refused to certify the electoral votes in those states on the basis of fake election fraud. It would have been technically legal for them to do so. If this causes neither candidate to get 270 electoral votes, the House would have chosen the president. Per your arguments, that would have been fine as long as your team wins. That's deplorable.I don't see what you mean by "arguing for it". If state legislatures feel the need to perform audits and recounts then it is well-within their purview to do so - the Constitution, specifically the election clause, outlines that the specifics of an election on a state level are decided by the state legislature. I personally think that the effort is futile because the number of votes needed to close the gap is too wide, but they're welcome to perform any and all investigations they want to ensure election integrity, it's their election.
I've been perfectly consistent all this time - do whatever it takes to win within the legal boundaries of the system -> get elected -> enact your policy goals, which may or may not include changing the system. In that order, 100% of the time. If there's anyone struggling with cognitive dissonance, it'd be you, given the fact that you admit you're not dismissing the possibility of using tools you'd wish to see eliminated from the process and actively campaign against. A vegan is not much of a vegan if they eat a nice slice of ham on their sandwich every morning. I don't claim to be a vegan - I just have specific policy goals and I'm not ashamed to use any tool to achieve said goals.
To a casual reader it would appear that your principled stance is entirely dependent on circumstances - my stance is constant, it doesn't deviate from the plan based on arbitrary conditions. The difference here is that I'm willing to temporarily suspend a subordinate pursuit in order to achieve a more important primary goal, and I have no issues with stating that fact. You actively deny you'd do the same, even though you absolutely would.
I don't think I'm the one being inconsistent.