We need a revote
Far, far, far more than the evidence of Russian collusion which spawned a $40-million, two-and-a-half-year investigation, there is evidence that the Democratic Party stole the 2020 presidential election. Close to half the country believes that it is likely that it did.
We could verify the election results, one way or the other — and not over two and a half years, but over a single day — by having, in the states in which such evidence was found, a revote that would not have the vulnerabilities to voter fraud that the November 3 election did. Specifically, in such revotes, we would use computers that could not be rigged and, as postal voting is "vastly" more vulnerable to fraud than direct, in-person voting (see "Confessions of a voter fraud"; see also a 2012 N.Y. Times report, "Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises"), we would restrict the reliance on postal voting only to those residing at an excessive distance from the polls or for those who are actually unable to appear. There should also be photo IDs required; for those who might not have them, fingerprints or photos of them might be taken, after which they would be permitted to vote.
While there would still be some vulnerability to fraud, this is as secure an election as we can provide — which is what, under Article 4, Section 4, our Constitution requires. More specifically, it provides that the "United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." "Republican" here was used not in reference to any political party, but rather to a form of government ruled with the consent of the people — not by kings.
To the framers, such consent came with certain deliberated qualifications to democracy (but which themselves were adopted by popular vote) — such as the Electoral College; the Senate; the independent Judiciary; indeed, the Constitution itself — which distinguished the government from a pure democracy. Such a "republican" form of government — a constitutional democracy — presupposed that the process by which the people give their consent would not be corrupted. Consequently, the Constitution effectively guarantees that such a process will not be corrupted.
Certainly, if there is reasonable concern over the legitimacy of an election, under this provision, the United States, through its Judiciary or through Congress or through the presidency, has the authority to intervene.
Through the Judiciary, any American individual or private organization (and perhaps others) would have standing to bring such a challenge through a federal district court — although, at this late stage, barring extreme expedition, there probably would not be time enough for that process.
Through the Congress, it might be possible for Republicans to refuse to accept the results of the Electoral College vote until such vote is confirmed by revotes, as described above, in the battleground states that have been challenged.
Through the presidency, the president might, under a declaration of martial law, require the battleground states to conduct such revotes as described above.
Does that last option, or any of them, sound too extreme? If the election were in fact stolen, it would hardly be too extreme; it would be an entirely appropriate response to what would in fact be a veiled insurrection. The problem is, we have no way of confirming whether there was such a theft unless such revotes are held. So, then, this is the question we face: do we refrain from requiring such elections because they might not be necessary, or do we have them because they may be necessary?
If we have them, and Biden still wins, then what would be the consequence? It would be beneficial, for the deep suspicions of close to half the country would — to the extent they could be — be eased, if not removed.
What if Biden wins half but loses the other half? He will still be president-elect.
But what if Trump wins them all, and with a landslide? Then we will have dodged a bullet — and not just in this election — that very well may have ended this "republican form of government" forever. But only if we have the revotes.