Has Digital Media Made it Easier to Sway Voters and Steal Elections?

Just for a second, close your eyes and imagine someone involved in running a major political campaign being implicated in an activity that is devious, probably illegal, and extremely influential all at the same time. Shocking, right? I will give you a moment to either pick your jaw off of the floor, or stop laughing. Although I have a feeling it is probably the latter. Okay, so maybe it is no secret that political hacks have been engaging in shady shenanigans since the invention of elections. But, now that the front lines of politics are becoming increasingly digital, is it possible that the battle is only getting dirtier, and potentially more dangerous? 

I recently read an article in Fortune Magazine that commented on the increasingly influential role that social media (particularly Twitter) has played in the 2016 election. That in itself shouldn't be a surprise. Twitter provides a platform for candidates to directly engage with constituents on a massive scale. Something else that may not be a surprise is the recent accusations by TechRepublic that candidates are using fake followers to boost their following and increase their influence. The Clinton and Trump campaigns have faced the most skepticism to this point. So, this leads one to ask if this trend is creating a real impact. Do bots and fake followers really matter?

There is no more perfect an example of this dangerous slippery slope than Andrés Sepúlveda. Andrés is a Latin American political operative recently profiled by Bloomberg. He used a custom software to direct 30,000 Twitter bots to create false enthusiasm for candidates and spread rumors about the opposition. He says the tactics gave him “the power to make people believe almost anything.” It is scary to think you can influence millions of people at a moments notice all around the world by spreading lies. Think of the impact that can have on an election. Andrés being the true pro that he is, also hacked emails and stole data. He currently resides in prison, but what's interesting is that the person who originally employed Andrés claims to have been contacted by Donald Trump's campaign.

So, that leads to my ultimate question. Are the online campaign tactics of today inherently nastier, dirtier, and more impact full than those of elections before the modern age? I mean, how much damage could someone really do back before information was so easily shared? If you aren't an American history buff, the answer may surprise you.

For example, the 1888 election between Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison was plagued will dirty tactics such fake letters, vote buying, and outright fraud. In the end, Cleveland lost the election despite winning the popular vote. Sound familiar? Al Gore, I am looking in your direction. Rutherford B. Haynes won the 1876 Presidential election through a backroom deal that led to the end of the Reconstruction efforts after the civil war. Perhaps nothing can top the 1824 election in which Speaker of the House, John Clay essentially robbed Andrew Jackson (whom he loathed) of the Presidency, despite Jackson winning both the popular vote and majority of electoral votes. John Quincy Adams would be the benefactor of that scandal. So, whether it is misinformation, or downright corruption, the tactics of yesteryear did just as much to impact elections as anything someone can come up with on Twitter. Is it scary? Yes. Can it impact an election? Probably. But frankly, we have seen worse over the years.

Don't just take my opinion, what are your thoughts? Are election tactics any worse today than they used to be, or do we as voters just have selective memories?