[jmdjmd]

All democratic elections are hacked, not in a technical way but in a social way. Take my country India, for example. The winning party in almost all elections till 2014 got just under 40% of the total vote. Minorities form 15-20% of the vote bank and the minority vote is always consolidated, i.e. they vote enmass for a single party (usually for The Indian National Congress (INC)). In other words, anywhere between 15-20% of the 40% mentioned earlier is the minority vote. The majority vote is always divided between the many many warring parties and the minority vote becomes the king/queen maker. No wonder the INC has always danced to the minorities tune.

I guess the majority had had enough and came together for the first time in 2014, resulting in a win for Narendra Modi.

I also guess the same situation happened in USA in 2016. The usually apathic/uninterested majority were frustrated/angered with years of ’minoritism’ and bonded together into a single consolidate vote bank that resulted in Trumps victory.

[veridies]

I won’t speak to the specific examples in either India or the US, but I will say that when you have extreme support for one candidate by members of minority ethnicities, that typically suggests that the other party is either apathetic or hostile to their interests. If there are enough members of the ethnic majority to reach a plurality, then that party will, and should, win. The fact that they vote en mass for one party isn’t “hacking”; it’s exactly how elections are supposed to work.

[9712263]

In an ideal world where people are intelligent enough to vote for their long term benefit, then what you said is true.

But let's say a country have little care to minority ethnicities. I have the many resources to arrange short benefit to them, such as occasional free dinner for those ethnicities, arranging cheap or free traveling trip for them. Essentially bribe those minorities.

Now I am elected to become a president. How do I get more resource to bribe minorities? I just receive donation from the rich and just set law to benefit them. Those law will get me donation and let the rich suck more money from the minorities. Now I have those dirty money in hand. Since minorities are living in a more challenging environment by my policy, those minorities will even more welcome my bribe and continue to vote for me.

Now you may ask, why are those minorities can't read news? Why they can't listen to the other side that may benefit to them? Firstly, minorities have very tough environment and they don't have education and even time to think about their future. Therefore, they just vote for whoever is familiar or whoever give free gifts. Secondly, a government could control the propaganda and paint those opposition as destabilizing country and blaming them as enemy and reason of their miserable situation.

It's not a hack, but a flaw. Democracy assume all people care enough about politics to understand the implication of each policy. If people don't have time resource for this, then it is pretty easy to spread propaganda to paint some enemy. People in poor condition just want to find someone to blame. And people trust the one who could bribe them a little benefit.

Of course, there are no better alternative than democracy, but people just too focus on their living and care to their own short term benefit. Long term benefit is difficult to promote since no one knows when will this be effective.

[a_imho]

Voting is merely one way to elect (any kind of) representatives and indeed, the problems mentioned in the gp are inherent to it. Consider how drawing a lot is probably more fair and less prone to manipulation [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

[veridies]

That argument is certainly true, but it applies to nearly everyone. Almost no one is politically well-informed enough to be sure of what’s in their long-term interest, with most people not understanding for example economics or environmental issues enough to take an informed position. So politicians frequently resort to short-term fixes, such as tax cuts, to keep people happy and voting for them. If more of those short-term fixes benefit minorities, that still isn’t worse than if they benefit majorities.

[stealthmodeclan]

> If more of those short-term fixes benefit minorities, that still isn’t worse than if they benefit majorities.

If minorities vote for receiving short term benefits then everyone including the minorities are knocked out of the long term benefits.

If you can just win by offering a vehicle like horse cart and keep upgrading it through research and development, adding 1km/hr speed increment every 5 year. Then you'll probably never be able to develop a car because its development requires long term research and development program, even if nothing, atleast a working infrastructure.

[stealthmodeclan]

> Firstly, minorities have very tough environment and they don't have education and even time to think about their future

I'll add here that even if they've time and education, they might lack proper nutrition if the government deliberately keeps the watchdogs which regulate food supplies, drugs and environment underesorced. This will reduce their IQ and ability to take a better decision.

The end game is whoever manages to keep people desperate and dumb.

Simply letting bad actors contaminate the food with lead will do this job of keeping everyone dumb and winning election next year by throwing breadcrumbs.