If a party in Germany wanted to do the same thing, it would make voting more difficult in rural or urban areas, or east or west, or similar, depending on where its support was. This sort of manipulation of outcomes via some form of discrimination is _possible_ everywhere. The US does seem unusual for a developed country in that there are major organised attempts to _reduce the number of people who vote_, though. And possibly unique anywhere in that senior elected officials have mentioned this in the context of it being a good thing.

Generally, in a democracy, more voting is, at least publicly, considered better (in private, of course, some party officials might disagree, but the backlash if they tried to _do_ anything about it would be unthinkable).

I actually wonder to what extent this is a function of how democracy developed in the US vs everywhere. At least in the popular mythology, voting went from available to all male members of the ethnic majority, to all members of the ethnic majority, to everyone (this isn't actually quite true; a number of southern states had property qualifications for whites pre-civil war). Whereas a more common pattern of development elsewhere was the vote for practically no-one -> the vote for a very few (property qualifications) -> the vote for all men -> the vote for everyone. Most people in Europe will need to look back no more than a few generations to see where _their_ family wasn't able to vote, which may cause people to be more defensive of the institution.

There's also the example of history; most of Europe's 20th century totalitarian regimes screwed with voting early in their development.