You don't suddenly have sporadic instances of fraud. Nobody is bold enough to think he can change presidential elections on his own. Suggesting pawns woke up one day with the idea that they should risk getting convicted and arrested, just in order to elect a different president is absurd.

Everyone knows even if they engage in fraud alone its a drop in the ocean and wouldn't change a thing. Even the dumbest pawns know that. Even the most dumb pawns wouldn't even begin to try to change the results if they never had an indication / suggestion that this would be bigger than just themselves and it would change the results.

And of course, money. But even money must have come from someone with the knowledge that it could change the result, otherwise its wasted money.

The concept of "there was fraud, but not enough to change the results" is contradictory. Nobody would engage in lone wolf fraud for the presidency. That's an insane thing to think to do on your own. If there was fraud, it proves that the perpetrators of the fraud that is known, knew it would change the results - because otherwise they would have no motive.

Fraud is always motivated by the perception it would change something. Even small amounts of fraud proves there was motivation to think results can be changed. Even the most radical democrat wouldn't break the law and go lone wolf cheating on his own because he knows it wouldn't matter.