Arguably though, this individual sole plaintiff doesn't have standing because DJT and the states as representatives of the population, are the aggrieved parties.

If you read his paperwork, you will see that he is making the case that he is the injured party, due to violation of his rights.

If the individual is seeking remedy, then his challenge would be against his state government.

Not if the individual government employees violated his constitutional rights, which is a criminal act. No government employee can have immunity against a criminal act.

Basic legal doctrine: The law cannot be both a shield and a sword.

His paperwork seems to reference that he brought this up in some form in his original Complaint at the district court level (which is not included in this document).

But if any individual were allowed to petition SCOTUS for certiorari over election disputes, it'd make for an even worse shitshow.

Shitshow or not, what is the RIGHT THING TO DO?

Follow the Constitution, or punt?

That is the fundamental question. Not that I think SCOTUS will do the right thing, but it is the correct question.

If individuals conspire against YOU, to deprive you of your right to vote via rigging elections, thereby overthrowing the duly elected government (an act of treason), is there supposed to be NO REMEDY?

American jurisprudence does not allow for a violation of rights to have no remedy. There must always be a remedy, or there is no due process, and certainly no liberty.

"... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." -- Declaration of Independence

Sooner or later, this basic principle of humanity must be honored or rejected.

Which will it be? And when?