But at least he would have to have the support of a crooked elections staff.

Unfortunately, even the most brutal dictators stay in power because they have a substantial number of people who support them, and a passive or inneffectual majority that opposes them. Without organization, communications and media, and the right (constitutional or illegally seized), to meet and speak and assemble. No majority, no matter how courageous, can overcome the oppressive machinery of the state, or of a cultural or religious meme with sufficient grip on its followers.

However, the dictator's job is not easy either. He must buy off his supporters, an increasingly expensive process, and alienate more and more of his opponents with increasingly opressive measures in order to keep power. This is why dictators so often rely on religion, or a religion-surrogate like Marxist or Fascist dogma, to educate the people that the arbitrary dictates of the tyranny are the laws of nature or the will of God.

But after a while, even the most sophisticated public relations/propaganda for the regime starts losing its effectiveness, as does all advertising, eventually. This is why dictators despise new, or "foreign" ideas, why they create or develop foreign enemies, and rely on nationalism and patriotism and their icons and symbols to immediately cast all opposition as the enemy. If the enemy does not exist, he must be created: the Zionists, the Communists, the Capitalists, the Jews, the Infidels, the UN.

This explains how hereditary monarchy based on a natural aristocracy worked as long as it did. As long as the "Divine Right of Kings" was a widely and mutually accepted doctrine, everybody put up with it. Today it is thoroughly discredited and only survives in N Korea, Saudi Arabia, and a few other small states.