If enough states had sent contested election results (eg a county or state’s election board is tied in approval or does not approve the results because of one die-hard) then the matter would have gone to the house of reps.

How many of those reps voted not to certify the election results? Now, in the event of contested state results, each state in the house of reps would get one vote. There’s more red states than blue states…how many unscrupulous representatives, who already voted not to certify the results, would it have taken to grant Trump the election?

For what it’s worth, many of the key states in the election had narrowly certified election results. In some cases it came down to a single individual who could have flipped the other way, and the results would have been contested.

You do not realize what a narrow path democracy treads. The anti-democratic forces do understand this, and the last few years have been empowering to them.

And that’s an easy scenario that doesn’t even take into account the very real possibility of political violence - don’t forget that people showed up to the US capitol with weapons and tools for kidnapping.

Honestly I find your take to be either naivety, denial, or willfully obscuring the truth to promote anti-democratic goals.