First comes the preparation of the public opinion — it is campaigning, political advertisement, debates, etc. This shapes the voting outcome.
At this stage it can be heavily influenced by foreign actors (adversaries), this is why in most countries there are laws regarding the transparency of political campaigns (funding, ads, and so on). You can't let China elect presidents in your country...
> doesn't change the fact that people did in fact vote for him
It also doesn't change the fact that if Russia didn't pour a lot of money into his campaign, he wouldn't have gotten any votes.
Voting is not the only thing. If it was, Russia or Belarus could have been considered democracies — people get to vote there (in case you didn't know). You can research why those countries are commonly considered autocracies / dictatorships, despite holding elections.
> If the people are easily convinced by tictok, that's on the voters
If people are easily addicted to heroin, is that on them by that logic? Ok maybe. Now imagine if China were smuggling heroin into the U.S. specifically to destabilize American society — would you still blame the people? Or might you consider it reasonable to fight against that?
People voting a way you don't like is different from fraudulent votes. Comparing the two is disingenuous.
>is that on them by that logic?
Yes.
No, Putin would have won in elections even if you removed fraudulent votes (there is a fraction, but it is not at all decisive). He wins not because of it.
In those kind of countries elections are won way before the voting takes place. So the voting is just an act of the regime's legitimation and is irrelevant regarding the outcome.
Actual evidence points to people mobilising themselves, including printing propaganda and putting it up on walls, see Arad county as an example https://the5star.github.io/cgarad/messages.html
The ads, or matching of the fundamental values represented by him. Protest? Or something else?
Of course this is futile play with thoughs while democracy is in danger from the benefitiaries themselves (demos), apparently not knowing what and how to do with it, paid influencers and social platforms shepherding them to wherever those want. It happened before.
Is it typical in most democratic systems that one has to justify their vote for it to be counted? Or does that only happen when the incumbent is unhappy with the outcome?
We've seen this in many countries over the past several decades. The Cambridge Analytica leaks should've been enough for lawmakers around the world to realize that there's an entire industry behind these operations and to take action in the interest of national security. Yet major regulations haven't been passed, and even the proposal of a TikTok ban is highly controversial.
We're living in strange times, and I fear it's going to get much worse before it can get better.
For the record, I'm personally not thrilled by the idea that people have voted for an extremist. However, the situation you're disclaiming certainly seems to be the actual case.
The rest of your comment essentially boils down to "I think that the people who voted for him, should not have voted for him for reasons X,Y,Z"...which doesn't change the fact that people did in fact vote for him.