Have you joined the ‘Boris: Not in my name' Facebook group yet? What about ‘There's a special place in hell for you if you voted for Boris Johnson' group? Or, my personal favourite, dripping with contempt for anyone who voted against the preference of London's liberal intelligentsia, ‘Find the tossers who protest voted and helped Boris get in. They should never be trusted with ballot papers again!' There's nothing like an election to bring anti-democratic trends to the fore, especially when the chattering classes decide the wrong guy got in. Local government needs to be wary of this new trend – that is, concluding that if the people don't vote the correct way, there's something wrong with the voters. While I didn't vote for Boris, I recognise he did actually attract a majority of 2.4 million voters and beat Livingstone convincingly. I will argue against his policies, such as his ludicrous, unworkable and authoritarian ban on drinking alcohol on the Tube. But that is a row with a political opponent. In contrast, the ‘it's a sad day for democracy' critique petulantly tells the electorate it mucked up. Previously, Steve Richards, writing in The Independent newspaper, displayed unabashed disdain for Londoners who were about to go to the polls. ‘The failure of voters to make connections is… why Ken Livingstone might lose... Today it is the voters, not the political leaders, who face a series of tests. I wonder how many of them will pass,' he wrote. Those who fail the test set by enlightened commentators are ridiculed with nothing short of loathing. Novelist Will Self described Boris voters as ‘4x4-driving, Laura Ashley headscarf-wearing, inherently inegalitarian and snobbish denizens of Chelsea'. For some, the wrong type of voters means the vote doesn't count. The Independent's Johann Hari concludes that it was ‘the angry, whiter outer suburbs' which elected Boris, whereas ‘in the areas the world thinks of as London – Ken won by big margins'. Hari has a ‘plan' to ignore the decision of those damn suburbanites, and ‘establish the Livingstonite Republic of Central London'. The tenor of such rants is clear: If only the right to vote was restricted to those who could be trusted to use it properly! It isn't just Boris' election that highlighted this tendency to sideline the electorate. Richard Barnbrook came fifth in the London mayoral elections, the first BNP candidate to win a seat on the London Assembly. Despite the fact that 130,000 people voted for him, a few hundred Unite Against Fascism protesters gathered at City Hall to start ‘a campaign to force Mr Barnbrook from office'. What a nerve. Regardless of what you think of the BNP, Mr Barnbrook was elected fairly and squarely. What arrogance to demand he is unseated, having failed to make that case successfully on the doorsteps. For those who disagree with Mr Barnbrook on immigration – like me. I support open borders – it is up to us to win the arguments with the public. Truthfully, the BNP's strategy of whipping up fears about Muslims and immigrants is hardly unique – don't let's mention the Draconian 42-day detention proposals or the all-party habit of demonising illegal immigrants. And the case that ‘the BNP is anti-free speech so the party – and its voters – should be censored' is beyond parody. The triumph of popular will fared little better outside London. As if Liverpool City Council wasn't in enough disarray, voters' attempts at giving the Lib Dems a bloody nose by forcing them out of overall control was overturned behind the electorate's back. Seconds after the last result was called, party hacks ‘fixed' a deal, persuading independent Nadia Stewart to defect. With the voting public so irritatingly getting in the way of the business of politics, maybe ‘those who know better' should just abolish elections altogether. And before bien pensants start lecturing Burma, Zimbabwe or China about their lack of democracy, check out Facebook as a salutary reminder that such attitudes are worryingly alive much closer to home. Claire Fox is the director of the Institute of Ideas