You seem to believe you’ve found some absolute truths: “everything is political“, “disagreement implies privilege“. These systems of logic absolve you of: seeing the gradients of truth, making real efforts in understanding a situation, asking questions, and making up your own mind.
Gradients of truth? If one side says the election was affected by voter fraud and the other side says it wasn't, it's not some enlightened path to say "both sides have a point, so there must have been a little bit of fraud". Sometimes one side is just wrong, either by an honest mistake or by active bad faith.
Some amount of voter fraud can swing an election. You could instead have more fraud in the direction that simply reenforces results. Is that more or less of a fraud problem? Creating fictional voting entities is highly problematic. Casting a vote a second after polls officially close is less problematic. It is enlightened to remember there are no absolutes. This allows one to see nuance rather than believing the only choices are no-fraud or fraud.