Democracy is a mechanism that is really only intended to solve the question of how we ought to be governed amongst people that as a necessary precondition, have agreed to adhere to a shared set of democratic norms.
Elections aren't really intended as a mechanism for getting what you want in and of itself. Elections are basically just a means of self perpetuating these Democratic norms.
We do want elections to be free and fair as a means of filtering out candidates who might seek to eliminate democracy. But this is primarily a concern before, not after, the candidate has revealed their true agenda.
You don't want elections to be rigged because that could lead to dictatorship. If elections were rigged but we see later that democracy survives anyway, it's still a concern, but far less of one.
We are already living in Biden's America. If there was a secret agenda to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, we would have known about it by now, or the powers that be in the DNC have at least judged that they intend to keep that objective secret as they do not believe their hand is strong enough to force it at this point in time.
Either way,it appears Democracy has been thrown a life preserver, at least by the Biden camp. Through this prism, the self perpetuation and commitment to democratic norms, the election has already served its purpose successfully, whether it was rigged or not. The only reason to rig an election to preserve Democracy would be out of fear the other side won't adhere to democratic norms.
Why fix what isn't broken, or overly obsess over something that is partly broken but still works well enough to serve its intended purpose?
The political mood since election day has overwhelmingly been one largely of relief. Stocks seem to be positive, rioting has mostly calmed, people mostly seem content to move on with their lives, with the usual conspiracy theories here and there.
Now lets compare that to Trump's rhetoric before the election. We can now see that he was either
a. lying
b. being extremely petty
c. using this as cover to do himself what he accused others of doing
As a thought exercise, let's suppose a married couple have a long standing argument that has recently become ever increasingly heated and divisive, claiming each is trying to poison the other. They have a deal where on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays the wife cooks, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays the husband cooks.
The wife cooks up a plate of soggy, overly salted noodles on a Tuesday. The husband complains that she broke the rules of the agreement by cooking on a Tuesday when that wasn't one of her days to cook and that the food tastes terrible. But at least now we know for sure the food the wife cooks is not poisoned.
Do we really want to take the risk of having the husband cook, even if he has the right to cook the meal on a Tuesday, given that we strongly suspect one of the two is trying to poison the other , and we now know it isn't the wife?
If we want better policies, and for people to follow the rules in the future, first let's lead by example and leave no doubt that we are committed to democratic norms and to following the rules ourselves from the beginning.
The main tool we have to ensuring the quality of policies improves is not through elections, but through persuasive arguments and education.
If you want elections to be fair and to produce the policies that you want, convince people your way is better, they won't want to cheat in the first place, and the problem ultimately solves itself. Our elections aren't broken, our national dialog is, or rather, perhaps our elections are broken because our national dialog was broken first.
If you are using elections as a means of forcing results on your political opponents, don't be surprised when the integrity of the election itself begins to break down.
Let's just eat the soggy salted noodles on a Tuesday and be grateful we are still alive, and focus on what really needs to be fixed.