Unless you're getting down to margins of single or double digits. Outside of local races and the occasional state legislative seat, I don't think there's a single election in modern times that you could change by fraud, including Florida in 2000 and the Washington House seat I pointed you to. There's just no practical way to round up thousands of votes from people who otherwise wouldn't vote, died, or moved out of the state and execute on that plan without it getting detected. Someone who wanted to vote would show up and discover their vote had already been cast. Or they'd never get their ballot in the mail and would complain to the elections office. The more fraudulent votes you cast, the more people show up complaining. Even with 1% of your stolen ballots complaining, you'd get dozens or hundreds of people making those claims if you were trying to compile thousands of fraudulent votes. Media--particularly the Fox types--would have every incentive to shout about these claims of fraud to the high heavens, and justifiably so. We know of exactly one woman in 2020 (in Nevada) who claimed someone had voted in her place. It doesn't matter if you mail ballots to everyone or not, because fraudsters have to bat 1.000 (or very nearly) on stealing them in order to pull it off. Audits after the fact confirmed out-of-state voters and dead voter allegations were flawed, so that's out. If you go after some other weird route like nursing homes, you still have to hit dozens of nursing homes and not have a single employee, resident, or family member call foul. Ballot harvesting doesn't change the math either, because if you're doing it fraudulently you still have to bat 1.000. I just don't see any way that you can pull it off in an election decided by more than a few dozen votes, which are the margins you get in close Auburn town council elections.

My objection to all the voter fraud stuff is that it is based on motivated reasoning. The laws aren't really about making elections more secure. They're about throwing red meat to a base that wants to believe they weren't already secure and that undetectable fraud (see LA's perpetual claims) is why their candidate lost. It's not based on actual evidence or even a plausible theory of how the fraud would occur. It's based on wanting the voters to not believe the outcome in an election that actually is secure. We'll see how things go this fall, but for all of these states that have supposedly made their elections more secure (GA, NC, TX, etc) and the others where COVID protocols have changed, I seriously doubt that Trump and the GOP are going to just throw up their hands and say, "Of course, the laws changed so it's all good. No fraud." Even when he won in 2016 he commissioned a fraud committee to try to find the 3 million votes that would give him the majority.