Foreign electoral interventions are attempts by governments, covertly or overtly, to influence elections in another country. A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin concluded that the country intervening in most foreign elections was the United States with 81 interventions, followed by Russia (including the former Soviet Union) with 36 interventions from 1946 to 2000. In July 2018 U.S. Representative Ro Khanna introduced an amendment that would have prevented U.S. intelligence agencies from receiving funding that could be used to interfere in the elections of foreign governments. The amendment would ban U.S. agencies from “hacking foreign political parties; engaging in the hacking or manipulation of foreign electoral systems; or sponsoring or promoting media outside the United States that favors one candidate or party over another.” Proponents of election interference helps keep hostile leaders and political parties out of power. Opponents argue that the amendment would send a message to other foreign countries that the U.S. does not interfere in election and set a global gold standard for preventing election interference. Opponents argue that election interference helps keep hostile leaders and political parties out of power.
No, this makes us go against some of our most important principles in tampering with democratic systems. If we were to do this, are we any better than dictators and despots who have sham elections? No. But we can influence countries through diplomatic efforts and shared interests to help make progress on global issues.
No, after all, we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy because it’s not only ended in disaster in the long run, but it would be considered a Crime against Democracy, aka Democracide. However, personally, we should, but only to A. address security threats, not monetary interests, B. protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler, and C. influence public opinion, & not tamper with a fair voting process, just as long as our actions are not considered a Democracide aka Crimes against Democracy, then I’m for it.
Yes, to the extent that not doing so would have catastrophic consequences for the world. As such, this should only be done against countries who are endangering the world via nuclear threat or climate change-related behaviors. Which is to say Russia and Brazil specifically, maybe India.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion