Blue states are totalitarian dictatorships!

[T. A. Gardner]

Stupid and infantile humor doesn't belong in General Politics forum.

Sure it does, particularly with today's politics as the standard...

[T. A. Gardner]

A study done by the Koch owned Cato Institute and you are surprised by the findings? Anyone could have predict those

Let’s put it another way, if you regulated guns, you are low on the Cato’s “freedom” scale and thusly a dictatorship. If you make it easier for citizens to vote you are a dictatorship. If you don’t enforce others’ religious beliefs you are a dictatorship. If you do your best to prevent the spread of a dangerous virus, you are a dictatorship. Etc., etc., etc

And every time I see it I have to say, it is always comical the way those on the right throw around abstract concepts as “freedom” and “liberty” as if they were bumper sticker cliches

Genetic fallacy. You attack the source without ever even trying in the least to disprove its findings.

[AProudLefty]

Sure it does, particularly with today's politics as the standard...

Ted and MTG would be the standard for the GOP.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are making a combination of Definist fallacy and Begging the question. That is, you assume an outcome based on a narrowly picked example. Just because voting is not allowed doesn't necessarily result in a dictatorship. Certainly, putting some restrictions on voting is reasonable and that doesn't result in a dictatorship either.
It is also possible that a dictatorship allows wide voting but remains a dictatorship. An example of this might be N. Korea. They allow and have "democratic" voting elections. However, your voting choice is the party or gulag. Other places have mandatory voting to include potential fines and even jail for not voting. Take Australia for instance. Compulsory voting is the law there require every citizen 18 and over to register to vote and show up and vote in each election--or else. You can be fined and even jailed for failing to vote. That is every bit as much a dictatorship as very restrictive voting laws are.

So, claiming that putting some restrictions on voting ends in a dictatorship is a non-starter and logical fallacy.

What outcome did I assume? I looked at the specific criteria that the Cato Inst used to define freedom. They didn't include voting in their criteria. It the Cato Inst that was begging the question since it is obvious they selected criteria to create the outcome they wanted.

You brought up dictatorships in your OP.

I never claimed putting some restrictions on voting ends in a dictatorship. That is your straw man. I merely pointed out that under the Cato criteria a dictatorship that doesn't allow voting would calculate as more free if they allow gambling than a democracy that bans gambling. No reasonable person would accept that as the proper result but Cato ignores that in their criteria.