Drongo alert: this piece may contain traces of satire and irony.

We have banned hate speech in order to protect minorities and it is now time to ban hate votes in order to protect democracy.

If America’s experiment with Trumpism has demonstrated anything, it is that votes, like words, have consequences and so sensible restrictions should be applied.

Just as it is widely accepted that freedom of speech does not give a person the right to say whatever they wish; we must now agree that free elections should not give people the right to cast ballots however they choose.

There must be limits on voting in order to protect voters from themselves.

If it is illegal to speak in a way that offends or humiliates another person on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, why should it be legal to vote in a way that offends or humiliates?

For instance, supporting any political party that refuses to remove gendered terms from official documents should be considered a hate vote against trans people.

If discriminating against women in the workplace is illegal, why should it be legal to vote for a party that does not insist on gender quotas? Voting for such a party should constitute a hate vote against women.

And casting a ballot for a politician who does not support Black Lives Matter must be deemed a hate vote against First Nations People.

Anyone found guilty of hate voting should face criminal sanctions.

If your voice can be cancelled on social media for the expressing the wrong opinions, why should your vote not be cancelled at the ballot box for voting the wrong opinions?

Just as free speech does not mean the right to be a bigot, the freedom to vote does not mean the right to vote for a far-right extremist, by which I mean anyone other than a progressive social justice warrior whose pronouns are listed in their social media bio.

It is only by banning hate votes that democracy can be protected from those who would destroy it by recklessly wielding their vote in such a way that values other than those espoused by progressives are able to be legislated.

I understand that some people will argue that there is no freedom to vote if people don’t have the freedom to vote in a way that others disagree with. But that’s too simplistic.

It’s easy to say everyone should vote however they please when your socially progressive agenda’s right to exist is not in the firing line.

Eliminating hate votes should not be thought of as limiting free elections. It should be thought of as a moral strategy to keep hate votes from escalating into something more dangerous — like the election of conservatives.

We have banned certain kinds of speech. We must now ban certain kinds of votes. It is the only way to remain free.

Big tech companies have demonstrated that hate speech can be quickly and easily eliminated from social media platforms by suspending or blocking users who violate speech codes.

Such a strategy could be applied at the polls. Hate votes could be quickly and easily eliminated from election counts.

After all, if we are willing to adjudicate what people can say, why would we not adjudicate how people can vote?

It’s the logical next step.

God help us all.