Thiel's 2009 article did not argue that people would lose their votes or that democracy would disappear.

Judge against the text of Thiel's 2009 Cato Unbound essay 'The Education of a Libertarian'. True: the essay does not argue that people would or should lose their votes or that democracy would disappear (e.g. its line that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible is presented as an observation, not a forecast or proposal of disenfranchisement). Mostly true: it makes no such argument directly, but some passages (e.g. on women's suffrage and welfare beneficiaries) could reasonably be read as leaning that way. Mixed: the essay is genuinely ambiguous, with passages supporting both readings about equally. Mostly false: the essay's thrust implies an argument for curtailing voting or the end of democracy even though it never states it outright. False: the essay explicitly argues that votes would or should be taken away or that democracy would or should disappear.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 The Education of a Libertarian Cato Unbound · 13 April 2009 Own record

   “Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

2. E2 The Education of a Libertarian Cato Unbound · 13 April 2009 Own record

   “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.”

3. E3 The Education of a Libertarian Cato Unbound · 13 April 2009 Own record

   “It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.”

4. E4 Print Issue Cato Unbound Own record

   “Voting is not under siege in America, but many other rights are. In America, people are imprisoned for using even very mild drugs, tortured by our own government, and forced to bail out reckless financial companies.”

The quoted parts of the 2009 essay state Thiel's belief that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible (E1). They also say that more welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women made "capitalist democracy" an oxymoron (E2). Neither quoted passage says that anyone would or should lose the vote, or that democracy would or should disappear. However, the passage on women's suffrage and welfare beneficiaries is exactly the kind the criteria say could reasonably be read as leaning that way, which fits "mostly true" rather than "true". Thiel's later clarifications (E3, E4) back his own reading, but they are his own statements, so this verdict does not rely on them.