Yes that's right, and in fact we already do that-- the definition of "objective" is satisfied by an electron in an "uncollapsed state" (to wit, different observers will get the same results from experiments on them). So I'm saying an electron in its "uncollapsed state" is no less a part of objective reality than one in a collapsed state. It is we who demand that objective reality have certain properties, based on our own interpretation of our experiences with it. That's not a very "objective" approach to demand reality conform to our requirements, rather than to modify our requirements to conform to reality. We get to define what "objective" means, but reality decides how it will interact with our definitions.

A truer version is, "the idea that the electron is in a 'state' is a requirement that we created for it, so it is up to us to gather the information to be able to describe that state".