This is a kind of strawman fallacy. You're starting with an argument (of the form "this particular idea about election software is a conspiracy theory"), and then pretending that it was actually an argument for the maximal refutation of the original, which you then show to be "wrong". But that's not an argument in favor of the original contention!

No one serious argues that election management systems are bug free or that their operators can't possibly make mistakes. We're just saying that nothing has broken yet.