An obvious ploy...
One of the difficulties in addressing the practice of fraud in the 2020 election, if you do agree to ignore the obvious in the coordination that had to occur to magically enable officials in 5 different states, and multiple but only particular counties within them, to alter election procedures in exactly the same way... at the same time... in multiple instances... with each exercise having the same bias in influence...
By not practicing “a fraud” but distributing the effort into a massive aggregation of many frauds... they seek to ensure that being caught in any one of them will enable the argument “yeah, but it wasn’t enough to change the outcome, so you should ignore it”.
See for instance the first paragraph in Boockvar’s BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-542/162063/20201130140620945_RPP%20Opp%20Cert%20v.FINAL.pdf
Before the 2020 Presidential election—in light of the exigencies induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and slowdownsin the operation of the United States Postal Service—the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Constitution requireda one-time, three-day extension of the “received-by” date for mail-in ballots.Fewer than 10,000 ballots were received dur-ing those three days. Pennsylvania has since certified its election results. There is no federal election in Penn-sylvania whose outcome would be altered if those bal-lots were counted.
The Texas Filing in TX v PA