Inside Jobs: How Great Powers Meddle in Other Countries’ Elections

New Books Network – International Horizons
Host: Eli Karetney | Guest: Dov Levin
Date: December 14, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode explores the pervasive practice of great powers intervening in other countries’ elections, focusing on both historical and contemporary examples. Eli Karetney interviews Dov Levin, Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, author of Meddling in the Ballot: The Causes and Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions. Together, they discuss the tactics, causes, and consequences of foreign election interference, drawing on recent events (such as U.S. actions in Argentina) as well as analyzing broader patterns and future risks.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Argentina’s 2025 Election: An Unusual Example?

[01:38–08:17]

• Background: In October, Javier Milei’s victory in Argentina was influenced by a highly public and substantial intervention by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to withhold a $20 billion aid package if Milei didn’t win.
• What’s Unusual?
  • The size of the aid was unprecedented; past U.S. election interventions have rarely involved such large material commitments.
  • The ideological extremity of the candidate supported (Milei being a self-proclaimed libertarian/anarcho-capitalist) was atypical for U.S. interventions.
• Not so new: Explicit threats/promises (“vote with us or else”) are a historically common tactic.

“The use of explicit threats or promises before an election ... is actually one of the more common methods of election interference... what was unusual was the overall size and potential material cost to the United States.”
— Dov Levin [04:25]

• Historical parallels: U.S. interventions with high costs were the 1948 Italian election (~$2.9B today) and Russia’s 1996 election via IMF loans (~$15B).

2. The Deep Roots of Election Interference

[08:17–13:44]

• Foreign meddling is as old as elections themselves, from papal votes to the Polish monarchy, where interventions became infamous.
• Founders' fears: U.S. Founding Fathers created the Electoral College partly to prevent foreign manipulation, as noted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69.

“Foreign interference in elections is as old as the existence of elections...”
— Dov Levin [09:06]

3. Overt vs. Covert Interference: Effectiveness & Tactics

[13:44–19:42]

• Overt interference: Public threats/promises, e.g., U.S. warnings before Kenya’s 2013 election.
• Covert interference: Propaganda, hacking, fake news—exemplified by Russian 2016 interference.
• Effectiveness: Overt methods are statistically more effective (increase preferred party vote-share by ~3% over covert methods).

“Overt interventions are usually more effective than covert interventions when it comes to helping the side you want win an election.”
— Dov Levin [14:15]

• Why? Overt methods allow greater resource commitment and can speak directly to voters; covert support is riskier and limited in scope.

4. Typology of Interference Tactics (“Dirty Tricks”)

[19:42–26:27]

• Campaign funding: Direct (cash, contracts), in-kind (equipment, materials), indirect (funding pro-party organizations).
• Campaigning assistance: Training, strategy, messaging, polling, expert consultants.
• Aid as leverage: Foreign aid, loans, or favorable trade – granted or withdrawn before elections.
• Non-material concessions: Bases, territorial claims, alliance treaties, POWs, etc.
• “Dirty tricks”:
  • Spreading fake/real damaging news
  • Forcing splits in rival coalitions, funding spoiler candidates
  • Sabotage: Destroying rival materials, campaign offices, spying, fundraising sabotage
  • Assisting the preferred side with voter fraud (e.g., “fake voters, including horses” in Guyana, 1968)

“Don’t try this at home... Acts that were designed to directly harm one or more such candidates or parties...”
— Dov Levin [20:14]

5. “Inside Jobs”: The Role of Domestic Collusion

[26:27–30:26]

• Electoral interventions rely heavily on cooperation with the domestic side (“collusion”).
• Candidates or parties typically must agree to receive or request external help.
• Foreign actors need insider information to make their tactics effective; without such cooperation, interventions usually don’t occur or fail.

“The only way they can acquire this really hard to find information is for gaining the cooperation of people who have it from years of firsthand experience...”
— Dov Levin [26:38]

6. Why (and When) Great Powers Intervene

[30:26–34:12]

• Interventions are rare unless the foreign power perceives vital interests at stake, and the opposing party is seen as inflexible/hostile.
• Blowback: Retaliation from the losing side, nationalist backlash, or loss of influence can occur; powers proceed carefully.

“Great powers... are aware of the fact that if they intervene...they can make [the other side] really angry...alienate...and turn them into an enemy.”
— Dov Levin [30:58]

7. Ordinary vs. Founding Elections

[34:12–36:32]

• Founding elections: First competitive elections after authoritarianism (or ever) – riskier for interveners.
• Both sides are inexperienced, often asking foreign powers for the “wrong” help, leading to backfire; foreign involvement tends to harm more than help the preferred side by ~6.7% on average.

8. How Frequent Is Election Meddling?

[36:32–37:44]

• Updated analysis: From 1946–2014, approximately 1 in 8 national elections saw U.S. or Soviet/Russian involvement.
• This rates as substantial, given international norms of non-interference.

9. The Harms of Foreign Interference

[37:44–42:16]

• Direct impact on sovereignty & democracy: Interventions often tip the outcome by 3–6%, sometimes deciding the leadership.
• Increases risk of democratic erosion or collapse: Especially with covert meddling.
• Rise in domestic terrorism: Losses by the “robbed” side can radicalize supporters, propagate anti-democratic narratives, fuel extremist recruitment.
• Policy distortion: Assisted candidates become more beholden to foreign interests.

“In many cases the foreign power, rather than the electorate, decides who is their leader...It frequently increases the chance it causes democratic erosion or even increases the chances of a democratic breakdown...It increases the frequency of domestic terrorism when it succeeds.”
— Dov Levin [37:44]

10. Future Trends & The Role of Technology

[42:16–51:21]

• Geopolitics determines intensity: More tension → more interference.
• Tech doesn’t increase frequency—except via voting machines/online voting:
  • AI and deepfakes may make propaganda easier but don’t solve the problem of knowing what messages will work.
  • Critical threat: Computerized/online voting could make direct tampering feasible, reviving “pre-modern” vote manipulation—but only if paperless and poorly secured.

“The only special exception...is as to the growing use of voting machines or even online voting...because that technological shift can open the door for a pre-modern form of such interference—in other words, interference in the voting tallies.”
— Dov Levin [46:46]

11. Retaliation After Unsuccessful Interventions

[51:21–56:15]

• Sometimes, failed interventions lead to “punishment”—loss of aid, sanctions, or “regime change” escalation (as in post-1970 Chile).
• The aftermath depends on whether the victorious side can “appease” the loser, or if the foreign power follows through harshly.

“After the United States failed to prevent Salvador Allende from being elected [in] Chile...Nixon became really, really angry...‘make the Chilean economy scream’...eventually led to Allende’s overflow three years later.”
— Dov Levin [52:32]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On effectiveness:

  “Think about an election like a competitive bidding game... the foreign power can outbid [local politicians], shifting more votes to the preferred side.”
  — Dov Levin [16:44]

• On founding elections:

  “For the local politicians, the equivalent of riding the bicycle for the first time... if a foreign power tries to intervene... they ask for the wrong things... and unintentionally makes... the side they're trying to help...worse rather than better.”
  — Dov Levin [34:49]

• On democratic consequences:

  “...reduces that country’s sovereignty and harms one critical democratic principle, the fact that the electorate gets to choose its own leader.”
  — Dov Levin [37:44]

• On tech and voting machines:

  “Any voting system that uses...computers potentially makes that form of meddling feasible again.”
  — Dov Levin [46:15] “Hopefully that nightmare scenario will not happen in practice. But if there’s one way in which technology can cause voting meddling to become more common, it would be... if there’s more voting machines and online voting and no one does anything to protect them.”
  — Dov Levin [50:59]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Argentina 2025 & Unprecedented U.S. Aid: [01:38–08:17]
• History of Election Interference: [08:17–13:44]
• Overt vs. Covert Meddling: [13:44–19:42]
• Tactics and Dirty Tricks: [19:42–26:27]
• Collusion as “Inside Job”: [26:27–30:26]
• Calculating Intervention & Blowback Risks: [30:26–34:12]
• Founding vs. Ordinary Elections: [34:12–36:32]
• One in Eight Elections—Scope & Worries: [36:32–37:44]
• Harms: Erosion, Terrorism, Policy Shift: [37:44–42:16]
• Trends for the Future & Technology’s Risks: [42:16–51:21]
• Retaliation After Disappointing Results: [51:21–56:15]

Conclusion

Levin makes a compelling case that foreign intervention in elections is a “normal” yet deeply troubling feature of international relations, undermining democracy, encouraging authoritarian slide, and fueling instability. He emphasizes that while some methods (AI, deepfakes) may not fundamentally change the frequency of interventions, insecure digital voting could worsen the threat. The conversation concludes with warnings about the risk of post-intervention “punishment” and unsettled future scenarios where meddling—sometimes overt, sometimes subtle—remains a potent tool of great power politics.