And lastly, I quite enjoy it when they exhibit some good ol' honesty.
I'm sure that chump is a conservative, but this is an interesting aspect of modern libertarian thought.
Experience has suggested to them that the problem with democracy is that the people as a whole tend to like and vote for things liberatarians don't like: taxes, welfare, social programs, etc. As a result, many libertarians have started to become extremely ambivalent or even hostile to democracy. I would personally argue that this is deeply problematic to any libertarianism short of outright anarchism (which solves the problem by rejecting the existence of the state).
If the proposal is to limit the vote, that's kind of interesting, because how do they propose to do that? Let's suggest that banning women and non-whites from the vote is a massive problem they aren't going to solve. But imagine minimum wealth/income criteria to vote: is that actually going to turn out a conservative / libertarian government? In the immediate term, polls suggest yes. But long term... one might recall that this was what the UK was in the 1800s, and the middle and upper classes just ended up voting in a series of social programs, and extended the franchise.
If the aim is to restrict voting to guarantee a relatively narrow political ideology, you don't want a democracy at all. What you want is a single party state (akin to China under the CCP) where people can vote for representatives, but the representatives are all vetted and selected by the party.
www.bbc.com
www.sbs.com.au
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2022.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/2367173c5d626a1dc6a11a5c95681d28/Blanco%20Vista%20Elementary%20JV%2016%20TT.jpg)
