> "Vote for us or you'll lose your social-related benefits" is already an existing thing when it comes to elections in the Western world.

Is this, perhaps, because the party saying it is a (relatively) left-wing party trying to ensure social benefits for all, and their main or sole competitor is a far-right party trying to destroy the very idea of compassion?

'Cause there's a big, big difference between "you'd better vote for us, or we'll destroy the things you like", and "you'd better vote for us, because the other guys will destroy the things you like". And while the latter isn't always true, it's not remotely a threat. It's either an inevitability, or a flat-out lie.