I'd also say that if you believe private entities can do everything better than the government then you shouldn't be allowed to hold public office. I'm sick of elected officials purposefully ensuring the government can't function as a way to say that it doesn't work so they can privatize everything. We need people who believe it can work and will try to fix what doesn't rather than dismantle it to sell it off.

Since people in the comments are already saying this would be anti-democratic, let me explain something.

We already ban children from voting. Banning certain people from voting isn't necessarily undemocratic.

Some things can be made stronger by taking elements away. Taking Authoritarians out of a Republic makes the Republic stronger. Now I don't think it should be illegal to be authoritarian. But if we ban Authoritarians from voting or holding public office, our system of democracy becomes stronger. Much like it's stronger for not allowing children to vote.

So you’re not allowed to vote then. 🤣😂
Besides it’s not a democracy. Hence the pledge of allegiance! And to the Republic for which it stands!

I fully agree with this, I think there needs to be extremist laws to prevent some of the worse effects of anti democratic people

But that would be anti democratic.

There goes your vote 😆

Restricting people's ability to vote based on their beliefs is anti-democratic.

Of course, my thoughts go to the ancient questions that always direct one to think further: who will decide what's anti-democratic? In order to have a state based on law one needs to accept diversity of opinion. Liberal democracy didn't kill off the Weimar Republik, nor the free vote either.

Sadly only 55% of the UK electorate vote. The other 45% deserve the government they get.

Of course, the homeless or those in temporary accommodation are disenfranchised.. This should not be the case.

What we have been seeing is that going forward, whoever is in charge may have the power to define what is "anti-democratic".

For example, those in office currently agreed with the armed January 6 rioters and saw nothing "anti-democratic" about them attacking and vandalizing a government building.

However, this same president sent the National Guard in to stop unarmed protesters from exercising their right to protest against ICE’s brutality. And he threatened to send them against citizens protesting against police harassment and brutality.

Right
But the concept of anti-democratic views had been historically defined in ways that are anti-democratic in themselves.
May be a way to test them is if they took risks to create conditions for everybody to vote and to grant wide freedom WHEN such rights are restricted or forbiden

If you don't tolerate intolerance, than you are, yourself, intolerant.

Having to put up with nonsense is the price of a free society. If you can't handle it, then freedom isn't for you.

So just to recap...........you are intolerant of anyone who don't participate in politics......and we should not tolerate..........intolerance.

Hmmmm?

The problem with that is most people who make that argument dictate what "democratic" means and it rarely has anything to do with actual democracy.

Well, I see you are from Germany. German citizens only are allowed to vote in your elections.

ONE of the stipulations that I see regarding your voting laws is that votes are confidential. In other words, you can't KNOW that someone voted a certain way.

I see you disapprove of anyone who tries to dismantle your German democracy...and I would suggest that the only thing you can do about that, IF that person is a politician, is NOT to vote for him or her. (And perhaps convince your friends not to do so).

If ANY party...even one with which you disagree...meets the 5% hurdle rule, they are allowed to enter Parliament.

Communism is in no way a Democracy, and when they are so unhinged they're destroying themselves, don't interfere.

That's not democratic