Different talking points. A party that wants to get rid of the system that enabled them to get voted for in the first place is anti-democratic. People need to be protected from that no matter who or how popular they are.

Of course democracy is being protected, when it is clear such a party is being actively used and supported by foreign actors which have no right to vote in the affected country. People are being manipulated. The law comes first, then, people can choose. It's why a judicial branch exists.

Well, actually it is.

The other option has been tried 100 years ago and didn't go so well.

> If you want people to vote for other parties then those parties should chagne to serve the people again instead of trying to make the people serve them.

This doesn't work when the party doesn't serve the people in the first place.

It doesnt even help most of their voters.

There are democratic parties that care about people's economic concerns. Just because they get discredited by extremist trolls doesn't mean they don't exist.

You're not protecting democracy either by letting people vote on a party that aims to undermine said democracy.

That's how we got literal Hitler back in the days, I'm not sure your argument is very strong in practice

Right wing talking points and moving the goal posts. The constitution comes first. Popularity is not a shield. We have to ban them, and ban them fast. Irrelevant what people think, there is a judicial process exactly to avoid this empasse. The reason this is unpopular is because every coward party politician in power is worried about their own electoral consequences for supporting this process. Cowards who will go down in history as the vile scum who let it happen again.