I could see two sides to it. On the one hand, if you're in a position of trying to reduce harm in the society, it makes sense. On the other hand... it is a di

I could see two sides to it. On the one hand, if you're in a position of trying to reduce harm in the society, it makes sense. On the other hand... it is a direct betrayal of the most foundational principles of democracy itself. It is a reversion to pre-democratic principles where the general public are seen as a teeming mass of resources to be manipulated by their betters for goals chosen by those betters, and where influence and participation of the public is to be prevented. Where do you stop once you have decided that the general public generally has bad ideas and shouldn't play a role in their own governance? We did persist, as a species, for thousands of years with governments based upon the notion that those in the government were inherently superior, chosen by a god, from special bloodlines, etc, and I don't see any reason we couldn't get back there. But for the past couple hundred years, we've been trying out this democratic bent where we don't believe there are any specially anointed people destined by mystic forces to be leaders. And actively manipulating the public opens doors to lots of dangerous practices that were previously barred solely upon the principle that it would prevent public participation. Why not suspend elections if it looks like your party will lose power if you earnestly and honestly believe that the other parties won't continue the efforts you started to 'protect the public from themselves'? You can no longer form an argument against it.