This reply will probably be removed as it is my first attempt at providing an answer. I havent studied fascist states exclusively but I can give you some info from the political literature.

The first point is, how did fascist states differ from electoral democracies (those 2 are not necessarily linked). In fact in their daily operation they do not differ too much. They still need institutions to function and rely on some form of social contract to provide legitimacy to the regime. The difference is in how they attain their legitimacy.

Fascist regimes fall under the umbrella of totalitarian regimes (like communism). In these type of regimes the personal becomes political. Their penetration of society in general and civil society in particular is of much greater magnitude. This is often seen in the subjugation of interest groups to the interest of the state. They are made cronies of the regime (think of the youth divisions of political parties, but it can go as far as affiliated soccer teams). In fascist states their is no weighing of interests by the government, there is only one interest. Which is formulated by the grand leader (or the group around him in the case of later soviet leaders).

This subjugation of interest to the greater interest of the fascist state is at the same time a source of legitimacy and an argument to curb civil liberties and reduce political opposition. At the same time, they refrain from openly proclaiming dictatorial aspirations because of that legitimacy. Like modern day illiberal democracies they need some type of token elections to retain their legitimacy (this is usually done to convince foreign regimes that the leader has broad electoral support. Think Putin who holds elections even though they lack all substance to make them actual elections).

So the main aspects to differentiate the fascist state from electoral democracies is the subjugation of all interests to those of the state. Which replaces the legitimacy of states based upon the outcome of elections with legitimacy based upon reaching the goals of the state. So the state does not say, our exercise of power is legitimate because a majority of you chose us to lead, but our exercise se of power is legitimate because we will lead our nation to greatness.

In this sense fascist regimes and totalitarian regimes in general are characterized by transformative leadership. They don't just mind the shop, they transform it. But they're also dependent upon the transformative success for legitimacy. Because the transformation is generally used as an excuse for scrapping civil liberties.

If totalitarian states fail in their transformation of society you will see whats known as relative deprivation. Peoples expectations and what they see will drift further and further apart until they lack all legitimacy and the state becomes susceptible to rebellion, inertia, or outside intervention. To prevent the last form a state needs some form of international legitimacy, and token elections help to provide for that.

I hope the above answers your questions somewhat. To summarize: 1: fascist regimes function quite like normal states, with exception of the penetration of society. Which is of a much much greater magnitude than in 'normal' states. 2: fascist regimes rely on 2 major forms of legitimacy (1) transformative leadership and (2) token elections to keep up appearances for democrats at home, but mainly abroad.