There are legitimate questions being asked about the validity of the voting outcomes....

[Igel]

138. Every state I've been in has a nice systematic process.

Early results, which are unofficial and potentially meaningless. Mistakes happen and if they're going to happen, this is the place.

Official canvassing. These are done in person. They compare the final first results with the careful results obtained from the machines or from hand-counting/machine-counted ballots. If there's a problem, they double check. Until the initial canvassing the machines are sealed (i.e., secured with an official seal) and then resealed until all's clear or they're needed for the next election. Ballots are secured and under seal, as well, if they're on paper. Each jurisdiction does its own count--no need for much to over over risky internet, but if it does it's just aggregate numbers.

Many states do spot checks to make sure machines are accurate and there are no glaring errors.

In the event of a mandatory recount, it's good that the machines are sealed and paper ballots are secured (because a "recount" is just a recanvassing; if machine, that's quick; if paper recounts, that takes longer).

If a losing party wants to foot the bill (in most states) for a recount, and it's within any margin that the state legislature imposed, sure, why not. But SCOTUS said there's a drop-dead date for having results certified and submitted to the EC and after that there's no guarantee the state's Electors will be seated.

A week or two prior to elections, everybody was shouting how the federal government said that the elections were secure and sound and never more secure--because it shouted down Trumpsters bellowing otherwise. The discourse has pivoted on a dime (and, personally, it fells, cet. par., like when I first signed up to DU, post-election '04).