I think your analogy is kinda missing the point. The point isn't that you somehow have to sort people into "tolerant" and "intolerant", and then remove the righ

I think your analogy is kinda missing the point. The point isn't that you somehow have to sort people into "tolerant" and "intolerant", and then remove the rights of those you have categorized as intolerant. The point is the simple observation that tolerance is not unconditionally a virtue, but rather lends itself to its own destruction when regarded as such, and therefore you should have a limit on your tolerance if you actually care about it. And that is obviously true of democracy as well: Democracy can be used and has been used to put dictators into power, and if you actually care about democracy, you therefore should have a limit on what democratic decisions you are willing to accept, and not just go with whatever the majority has decided as the supposedly "most democratic" way of making decisions. So, yes, you kinda have to "prevent undemocratic members from voting", but you may not need to sort people into "democratic" and "undemocratic". You can do it by banning undemocratic parties, for example. Or you may not need to really do anything at all, except for watching out for when something does need to be done. Noone is saying that "populism will overwhelm democracy". But it obviously can, and has, and you should not discount that possibility, and refuse to prevent it just because it is superficially "anti-democratic".