Well it is amazing you said it after I said a few times I was just looking for credible information. I may have asked for more than one source but I think that's more than reasonable as well.
I kinda suspect you still don't get what I'm saying. But that's okay, it only adds to the irony.
About the source. What you said that you've yet to see *any* credible evidence. Okay, so someone posts a peer reviewed study from a research university, which is in the set of *any*. But then you move the goalposts from *any* to *many*. At this point I think I'm inclined to suspect that it wouldn't matter how many studies or how conclusive they are. When you move goalposts it appears that there is no proof, not matter how much or how credible, which would change your opinion.
And on the subject itself, I've repeatedly said that there's plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud does happen, but that I don't think that it is as widespread as "millions". Although I thought it was plausible that voter fraud could change local outcomes, I did not believe it was was plausible that Senate elections or Electoral College could be significantly affected. Until this study.
As far as the credibility of the study, it is peer reviewed. The study, of course, has been criticized by some peers. So I'm not convinced that millions of ineligible voters DID vote. But the study did convince me that it's plausible.
As for the source itself, it is a public research university, and I have no reason to think that the study is biased by right wing ideology. According to Crowdpack, Old Dominion is a liberal leaning university about in the same magnitude of leftness as Harvard. So I have no reason to believe that the study is politically motivated by people on the right. If the conclusions are wrong, I see no reason to think they're wrong on purpose.