I don't see how one can (with logical consistency) speak of "an" electron, much less its "location".
The question of location is actually a very deep one. It includes fundamental problems in physics and mathematics but it is actually a problem of logic.
Physics is full of problems like this. For example, take an object (call it X). X is at rest for every instant of time up to, but not including midnight. Midnight is the first instant that X is moving.
At midnight, where is X?
X cannot be where it was when it was at rest, because it is moving.
If X is somewhere else, how did it get there (and when did it have the opportunity to get there)?
How can X be moving if it hasn't moved?
"Moving" implies changing position.
A mathematician would probably say that at midnight X is exactly where it was when at rest (before midnight), but that its differential acceleration is no longer zero. This is just another logical inconsistency, a way of attaching a mathematical label associated with motion to an object whose position hasn't changed.
The essential problem of location (or position) is one of delineating borders. One must define the border between an object and everything else (not that object).
A border of positive width isn't a real border because it can be subdivided; for example, my skin isn't a good border between my body and what's outside my body, because my skin has width. One might prefer to call the surface of my skin the border, but how does one define this surface?
In order to see that it's a logical problem and to eliminate complications related to the microscopic or atomic structure of skin, we can instead consider an ideal sphere.
Because borders cannot have positive width, the only alternative is no width at all. Indeed, a mathematical surface has no thickness. It is constructed of geometric points. This is the ultimate basis for all mathematical borders: the problem of border divisibility can only be eliminated by introducing something that cannot be divided.
Why can't a geometric point be divided? Because it has no extension in any dimension (direction). But then it does not occupy space, so how can it indicate position in space? A line of a given length has exactly the same length after you remove the end points, because points don't have length. This should make it abundantly clear that a point is a nothing posing as a something. It is in fact a logical contradiction.