No, just no.
The right to vote is valued differently in different nations of course. In some nations it is literally above everything else, while in others it isn't. This "ranking" of rights reflects the values within the societies.
Edit: And to add another commonly used argument: If you don't understand the right to vote as a super-right that cannot be taken away, someone will take it away at some point. Maybe they will just take away somebody else's right first. Probably a minority that nobody likes anyways. But this is a slippery slope which gives governments the incentive to criminalize things based on whether it will help them in the next election or not. Better not to have that incentive and criminalize things because they do actual harm to the public, than making it a political issue.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20447504
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/council-of-...
For example in France they can (though there are no polling stations in jail...), but there is a potential penalty decided by the court in relation to a criminal condition that suspends civic rights for a set duration. During that time the person cannot vote, cannot be elected, and cannot perform some official jobs or be a civil servant whether they are in jail or not.
So it is possible to, say, be sentenced to 2 years in fail, suspended, and in addition to 5 year suspension of civic rights. So the person is not jailed but cannot vote or run for office for 5 years.
Google tells me that 25-30,000 people have their civic rights suspended that way every year in France, when found guilty of a criminal offence. Before 1994 anyone convincted of a serious crime would lose their civic rights automatically for life.
It’s not something easy to agree with, I sometimes have a hard time agreeing with it for especially severe criminals, but being able to vote regardless of criminal history is key to preventing a dictatorship emerging and passing laws to lock up people they disagree with/supress dissidents/ensure only their supporters can vote. Yes I realise this seems all very rhetorical. Until it isn’t.
Sure, you could just wait for the people to revolt against the dictator, but why not put systems in place to avoid it in the first place?
And if enough incarcerated people and non-incarcerated people collectively believe a thing, what makes the beliefs of the non-incarcerated special given that the beliefs are the same?
By what we can assume is your reasoning based on your dismissal, if two thirds of the entire population believed that a thing should be legal but half of them were incarcerated for doing that very thing, the final third should be able to hold the incarcerated third hostage despite being significantly in the minority on the issue. That's highly irrational.