And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)
Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say << Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. >>
See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours.
I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Fighting to increase voter turnout is infinitely preferable and authentic to the stated principles of the country than fighting to suppress voter turnout.
When talking about politics its hard to tell whether or not people "believe X because Y" or "believe X because it helps the party". Maybe they don't actually care about X but have meta-awareness and claim to believe X because it helps the party.
This is what makes political discussions annoying and frankly inappropriate. There is no possible way to argue in good faith and people have vested interest in arguing outside of good faith. I'd wager that some people believe they are arguing in good faith but do not realize that they are dramatically influenced by the orthodoxy of their political party.
If you care about democracy in the slightest then you support an increased voter turnout regardless of how it affects your party.
There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either.
At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
To answer the question, yes. You absolutely want every single eligible person in the electorate to vote.
Voting is an exercise in representation. People vote based on what they want, not what they know. Desires, dreams, and concerns are not knowledge. Smart people, educated people, still have emotions, can still have hugely different values, and want wildly different things.
The purpose of democracy is to adjudicate between competing desires without violence. If you try to exclude a category of people from this process, you harm its legitimacy and it stops working well for everyone. The end point of that trajectory is revolution.
I can't remember seeing someone raise their hand and say, "I'm too emotional and poorly informed, please take away my right to vote." Wonder why that is.