Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 8yrs agoActive 2wks ago

Should the government attempt to influence foreign elections?

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…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

DMA:

State:

County:

719 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No

 @B9CVZ4X from California  agreed…5mos5MO

They’re not our elections. We had such a fit over Russia’s involvement in 2016’s election here, what gives us the right to do it elsewhere?

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No, and we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy

 @ScoopesoDemocrat  from Florida  disagreed…3yrs3Y

If it meets our needs, we plant the seeds. (Referencing our previous interest in the middle east, Israel and Ukraine.) Now if it's another country, consumed with greed, then it may need to bleed. (Referencing Russia's interference in our election). That is my stance on foreign policy. Folks, you have to understand we have to defend our soil on every soil. We have to express America's interests in other interests. An attack on one of us is attack on all of us. Don't let Ukraine into NATO but make sure Russia knows he can't run from all us or hide in China's shadow.

 @9FR9TC7 from Louisiana  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Only Americans can vote in elections. We will mind our own business, and you better mind yours as well.

@ScoopesoDemocrat from Florida  reported…1yr1Y

Not sure who the responder is writing to. If it's me then I'm offended as someone who doesn't really know me is giving me advice not a clear disagreement.

 @9FP63JH from Colorado  disagreed…3yrs3Y

I believe that we should try to influence other country's elections and policy because foreign countries, can be possible terrorist threats.

 @B9BGR8Y from Illinois  disagreed…5mos5MO

I think that if there is a possibility that the person running for election could pose a threat or cause danger than yes we should

 @B6ZY6KV  from Texas  disagreed…9mos9MO

If foreign countries have a negative impact on the global economy or health, there should be involvement.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes

 @9FP628D  from California  disagreed…3yrs3Y

No, with our values of fair and unrigged elections on our soil, attempting to rig foreign elections is hypocritical.

 @9FPGH76from Northern Mariana Islands  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Even if it wasn’t an authoritarian nation like China or Russia, would you be fine with the EU or Taiwan bribing politicians to fill their pockets?

 @9GDDCTR from Virginia  disagreed…3yrs3Y

We got upset when we suspected foreign governments interfering with ours. Why should we interfere with others? It's hypocritical.

 @9G8HYWY from Oregon  agreed…3yrs3Y

How sharp are your persuasion skills? Give your most compelling argument for why someone should agree with your “Yes” answer to the question “Should the government attempt to influence foreign elections?”. Your argument will go on the discussions page for others to rate and respond to.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, but only to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler

 @B9CVZ4X from California  disagreed…5mos5MO

Due process in an international court should be conducted first before decisions are made. Also, who are we, the US, to decide who’s tyrannical? Last couple times we’ve influenced elections we destabilized various South American nations.

 @B6ZY6KV  from Texas  agreed…9mos9MO

The war against Vietnam was to stop the spread of tyrannical rule and we were able to li8mit them. If we never fought them there are chances that the tyrannical rule could have spread.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, but only to address security threats, not monetary interests

 @9FP63JH from Colorado  agreed…3yrs3Y

If we help with foreign country elections, we can increase the number of rivals. Which in turn can help the U.S.'s economic system, trade system, and more.

 @9FX326Y from Michigan  disagreed…3yrs3Y

If their country elects a bad leader let it fall apart so we can come in, save the day, and then elect our own officials there as its a new state.

 @9GLFG7R from Ohio  disagreed…3yrs3Y

While it is important to address security threats, it is equally important to consider the potential monetary interests that foreign interference in elections can have. In many cases, foreign powers may seek to influence election outcomes in order to further their own economic interests, gain access to resources, or undermine potential competitors. This can have serious consequences for the affected country's economy, as well as for global stability. Therefore, it is crucial that we address both security threats and monetary interests when it comes to foreign interference in elections.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, but only to influence public opinion, not tamper with a fair voting process

 @8L5CPPS from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

No, we should not influence their elections like we don’t want them influencing ours

 @9FJRLJ6Democrat from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

No, Only in just retaliation

 @9DVTX7Nfrom Maine  answered…3yrs3Y

Only for the Cape independence Referandum to get the Western Cape independent for are new American ally

 @8JCJLWVUnity from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

This seems to do more harm than good.

 @9DS975H from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Under every circumstance no except for preventing tyrannical rulers or communist parties from taking control

 @BDW5TR5from Maine  answered…2wks2W

Only if necessary, and without bribing, using force, or damaging someone's reputation. What I find necessary are human rights and security. If that is lacking, then attempts could be made.

 @BDS7G63from Guam  answered…3wks3W

If it means for National Security

 @BDMLX38 from Utah  answered…4wks4W

If it is indeed an open electoral process, the United States should refrain from influencing the outcome. However, there are a number of foreign governments which do not hold open elections or have a multi party system and these should be viewed from the perspective of National Security.

 @BDCKGXD from New York  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, through the U.N. when it’s determined collectively to do so to protect citizens from undemocratic processes or human rights violations

 @BCMDJRCfrom PR  answered…2mos2MO

maybe for security reasons

 @BCMCJKJDemocrat from New Jersey  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, to address security threats, protect the people from human rights violations; monetary gain is secondary and the US should not try to instill an unfair voting process.

 @BC6GBQ9Constitution  from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, sometimes, but only through open lobbying and public statements, not through any clandestine means.

 @BB6BM7C from Tennessee  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, we should be a part of human rights groups and aid the general human rights of the world as a whole, but we should not interfere with democratically elected leaders even if they wish to instate a Communist form of government. People like Thomas Sankara should have been able to grow their country and not be interrupted and killed by the US.

 @B9R5WYDanswered…5mos5MO

No, but international organizations that the government is a part of should protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler

 @B8R7TTWNo Labelsanswered…6mos6MO

Maybe because it would benifit the economy with a new preference but it could also be dangerous because they're not American and might not make the right decisions

 @B8K5VQZRepublican from Delaware  answered…7mos7MO

No, I believe we should care about America first and if the foreign country elects someone with common intrest we work together and if not we let them do their oen thing.

 @B7S3C3NDemocrat from Florida  answered…8mos8MO

I believe that for the most part, we should not do this however, if the country is under the rule of a tyrant, I believe that we should take action and doing all out interventionwith the election. However, under less drastic circumstances, I think it would be better just to influence the election through popular opinion

  @DSNEPatriot  from Florida  answered…9mos9MO

Yes, but only to influence public opinion, address security threats, and to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler or ruling party.

 @B788YGMSocialist from Texas  answered…9mos9MO

When the person in current control of the control is violating global peace agreements or something similar, yes.

 @B6HZVSL from Indiana  answered…10mos10MO

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and may explain if asked for opinion but don't act like you have all the power over other countries.

 Deletedanswered…11mos11MO

NO... Under all morally sound, legally justifiable, and strategically sustainable frameworks grounded in first principles of sovereignty, consent, truth, and justice, the government should not attempt to influence foreign elections. Even if disguised as national interest, such actions violate ethical boundaries, destabilize trust, erode legitimacy, and compromise both the influenced and the influencer. No, never by deception, not even by intention.

 @AAbattery444Progressive  from New Jersey  answered…1yr1Y

I am open to our government ethically influencing foreign elections, but only through transparent and fair methods like open support or principled lobbying, and absolutely never through tampering with electoral processes. Such influence must be carefully considered and strictly limited to promoting candidates who are demonstrably committed to universal human rights, societal equity, and the genuine well-being of their people, not their exploitation.

 @B58WYFF from Illinois  answered…1yr1Y

Yes but only for purposes of national security and no monetary interests, to protect human rights from a tyrannical ruler, and not tamper with a fair voting process only to influence public opinion.

 @B4GCVY5 from Wisconsin  answered…1yr1Y

Regardless, voting should be banned globally to not disturb the changes made by totalitarian regimes

 @B3DVFJ9  from Kentucky  answered…1yr1Y

We should not do any hacking or manipulating of their campaigns or voting system, but we could non-monetarily show our support for policies or candidates that we believe to be helpful to their country, but ultimately we should stay out just like they should stay out of ours.

 @9D644HFfrom Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Capitalism propaganda campaigns should never be allowed in any situation and should be replaced with democratic and socialist principles

  @YauntiCommunist from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

No, If we have an issue with a country, we should request the UN take action

 @9D5JG5H from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

No the U.S. should not influence other democratic elections just as U.S. people don't want other countries to influence elections in our country.

 @9D58MH3 from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

Only to ensure free and fair elections, transparently, and through normal diplomatic channels. Never through subterfuge.

 @9D4TZSV from Maryland  answered…3yrs3Y

Only through speeches and statements.

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam  answered…3yrs3Y

No, and we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy, Add certainly don’t Militarily intervene against unfavourable countries

 @8FMT7HQ from Indiana  answered…6yrs6Y

Not officially but any advantage we can create we should. All other countries do.

 @8FH2MJQ from Michigan  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, and there should be only one country at all

 @BD2CZ8Z from Georgia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but covertly.

 @BCVDQS5 from Missouri  answered…2mos2MO

no, everyone should have their own opinion about foreign electronics, not pushed onto to them but given an option.

 @BCTYYH8 from Georgia  answered…2mos2MO

No, interference with foreign elections is an abuse of power.

 @7PTCG38Democrat  from Wisconsin  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only to address potential security threats and to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler

 @B22ZRXTSocialist from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

No, but we should provide support in the instance that the outcome leads to asylum seeking immigration.

 @9YCL52Y from Oklahoma  answered…2yrs2Y

there hasn't been a time in our history in witch this has not happened, thus I believe stopping would be nearly impossible. all those I personally believe this is extremely immoral, the president does not have a say.

 @9XKZ2P4 from Nevada  answered…2yrs2Y

Only in the case of dictatorships where we can then stabilize the country and not create a power vacuum

 @9WZGZJB from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

A mix of two answers: to address security threats, not monetary interests and protecting a country from human rights violations. For the people, basically.

 @9W76PP6 from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

Depends. While it's not really our business to interfere with another country's affairs, it would be in our best interest to address security threats and concerns.

 @9VLXC7D from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

The government needs to let people find their own opinions unless it gets like REALLY out of hand and people are being fed misinformation.

 @9VGGMSS from Minnesota  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only as a passive example of how to have a Constitutional Democratic Republic. There should be no active involvement in other countries’ elections.

 @9N8MT4F  from South Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

No, the federal government should not be spending taxpayer money on this. We should also not try to influence any other country's elections or policy.

 @9QSH92S from Missouri  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only if the people call for revolution AND their politics align with ours to prevent an unwanted leadership.

 @CurvyletterConstitution answered…2yrs2Y

No, as it is unethical to interfere in the democratic processes of another country, and interfering in another country's elections is a violation of their sovereignty

 @9M59LGJ from Arkansas  answered…2yrs2Y

The government should only influence foreign elections if it is a direct threat the the United States. If it is not, then the government should allow other countries to create their own path and work through their own elections.

 @9LB5T34 from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

If the government influence foreign elections, it could cause problems for not only the US but the nation that the government is trying to influence. This is more of a double edged sword.

 @9KZ4G8H from Nebraska  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only to influence public opinion in order to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler

 @9KYW3SXSocialist from Nebraska  answered…2yrs2Y

We should make sure people are aware of the problems in their country, but we should let them make their own decisions.

 @8RBQDDPDemocrat  from Vermont  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, to promote our interests and democracy, protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler, and address security threats

 @9KLLSFBRepublican  from Florida  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only to address security threats, safeguard human rights, and as long as democracy is not impeded upon.

  @TeTraGreen  from Montana  answered…2yrs2Y

no as this is a simple slap to the face of everything Americans have fought and died for over the past 250 years

 @9HNVFDB from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

It would depend on the attempt itself, I would have no issue with a President expressing a preference in an international election for a specific candidate or cause; I would however have an issue with that very President tampering with that election process in any manner.

 @9HNMJ86 from Delaware  answered…2yrs2Y

No, we should not mess with foreign countries rights to vote. But we should influence the people on the ideas of human rights

 @9HKFPLMVeteran from Missouri  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, to address security threats, not monetary interests, and to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler.

 @9HJJTS3 from Massachusetts  answered…3yrs3Y

Not the government, but private individuals could be justified in undermining foreign governments and bringing about global anarchism.

 @9HCWRM5 from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

No, only the UN should have this ability if human rights violations occur within a country. This applies to countries both within and outside of the organization. The UN should be given direct power in this regard, not just "speaking power"

  @Yaunti2  from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only to address security threat and they should do it by addressing that nation via the U.N.

 @9H4J7RJIndependent from Washington  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only in extreme cases of human rights violations or threats to the life of people in that country.

 @9GHGD6N from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, ideally no, but every nation will ultimately act to further their own geopolitical interests though.

 @9GBPXV8 from Ohio  answered…3yrs3Y

This is a case by case thing. We should generally try to stay out of other countries' internal affairs. But, there may be some cases where it is in our vital national interest to let our feelings be known.

 @9GBGZHC from Oregon  answered…3yrs3Y

No, as this has been often used to undermine democratic regimes in nations like Chile and Guatemala, hurting our international reputation

 @9G4T46Q from Alabama  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, to address security threats and protect the country from human rights violations & tyrannical ruler(s)- not for monetary interests.

 @9FZM955 from Ohio  answered…3yrs3Y

The federal government should prioritize domestic affairs and refrain from involvement in matters beyond the United States' borders.

 @9FVPFB6Independent  from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only when there is a security or alliance-change risk with the leadership change, but it should always don't within the legal parameters of each nation and never for financial gain.

 @9FQ87LD from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

As long as the government does it secretly so the other country doesn’t find out, it can influence elections in the interest of America.

  @Yaunti2  from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only to protect and prevent human rights or environmental protection violations, not for monetary interests

 @9FPBMPD  from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, for security and financial reasons

 @9FLPFCL from Mississippi  answered…3yrs3Y

No, it did not turn out well when the US interfered in the Vietnamese elections at the start of the Vietnam War.

 @9FJKZJJ from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, if it is a good influence. An influence for good.

 @9FHJ4XW from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only to ensure we are safe

 @9FGMQK3  from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only as a last resort.

 @9FCNT9Y  from Michigan  answered…3yrs3Y

I don't exactly see this question as a yes-or-no answer. I believe that the opinions we have are influenced by where we live, so what we view as good for another country may not align with the citizens of that nation. Though I do see the benefit of influencing another country's government/ public.

 @9FC573Pfrom Guam  answered…3yrs3Y

No, and reparations should be paid to nations whose democratically elected governments the united states helped to overthrow or directly overthrowed.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies