No, I'm being obstinate because you are citing risk when you don't know all the factors.<quoted text>
Not because of that at all. You really are being willfully obstinate because you don't like the results of the last two elections.
Since you cannot prove any specific number of vote fraudsters who are not caught, you cannot analyze a risk where it is a factor. In "fallacies of risk" talk, this is known as a false negative. You are assuming the value of "people who voted fraudulently and did not get caught" is zero, when you have absolutely no evidence of the value (as with speeding, absence of an arrest is not evidence that no crime was committed).
You might also take note that none of your usual cohorts are stepping in to defend you... Maybe they know something that you don't.